Re: BOINC again !?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 15:59 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 06:48 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > Craig White wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 16:19 -0400, William Case wrote:
> > > 
> > >> If it can't I will try Patrick's Network Manager solution.
> > >>
> > >> If that works, I then have to decide whether this is a Network Manager
> > >> bug; a Boinc bug; or both.  Of course, if boincmgr does successfully
> > >> reconnect to WCG and download additional work units, I will write the
> > >> whole thing off as my screwing around too much while Boinc was just
> > >> trying to do its thing.
> > > ----
> > > service boinc restart
> > > 
> > > a relatively simple fix.
> > > 
> > > If you were to file a bug report, I would file it against NetworkManager
> > > as this would mean that boinc works when networking is fully functional.
> > 
> > If the analysis of NM starting too late in the boot process is correct, 
> > wouldn't one of these make life a bit more tolerable?  Keeping in mind that 
> > I don't use F9, NM, or BOINC.  :-)
> > 
> > 1.   Change the script number in /etc/init.d of NM to a lower number than 
> > BOINC or change BOINC number to one higher than NM.
> > 
> > 2.    Do not configure BOINC to start a boot time in the usual manner but 
> > add a "server boinc start" to rc.local.
> ----
> I too don't use NM or BOINC but I do use F9
> 
> On F8, this clearly was a problem...
> # grep chkconfig /etc/init.d/NetworkManager
> # chkconfig: - 98 02
> 
> but on F9, I would have thought that this would have solved some of
> these issues...
> # grep chkconfig /etc/init.d/NetworkManager
> # chkconfig: - 27 84
> 
> which would have it start up much earlier (of course if this was an
> upgrade instead of clean install, I don't know if the sequences are
> adjusted when the upgrade is accomplished). I don't have BOINC installed
> but I have to believe that the startup sequence number would already
> have it loading after NM.
> 
> I would think that moving it up from 98 to 27 would have solved many of
> the reported issues but perhaps not...I just don't know and as you say,
> I don't personally use NM.
> 

boinc-client now loads S98 and
S27NetworkManager

> My own personal preference would be to leave NM enabled at boot time and
> put '/sbin/server boinc restart' in rc.local only because sometimes I
> look at boot time services and would want to know that the 'intent' was
> to start it up.
> 
> Craig
> 
Will try the rc.local in a couple of hours if necessary.

-- 
Regards Bill;
Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.2
Evo.2.22.2, Emacs 22.2.1

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux