As I said before, I don't want to replace .service+.timer combination. I just think there are cases when .service file (containing, for example, ExecStart followed by many ExecStartPost) can have a [Crontab] section with .timer syntax. The two formats (service+timer and [Crontab] inside a service file) can coexist. It's just a suggestion.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Fri, 08.07.16 16:35, One Infinite Loop (6po...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > A few usecases: > > 1) I want to delete specific files once a day > > For this you probably should be using tmpfiles' "aging" logic, and not > define your own timer. > > > 2)I want to free RAM using sync command and `echo 3 > > > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches` every 15 seconds > > Uh. Oh. I don't see why anyone would want to do this... > > > 3)I want to make sure certain processes always run using a specific nice > > value like -15. I know control groups are invented but it's not the same > > thing. > > Doing this with a service timer appears very strange to me. Simply set > "Nice=-15" in the unit file starting your service and the nice level will > be properly inherited by all processes of your services. > > But, in general, you could do all of the above with a combination of > .timer and .service file just fine already. These usecases are > perfectly covered, the only difference between what you are proposing > and what has been implemented is whether it's adding two unit files > per item instead of one, which I don't think is too bad... > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
