On 05/16/2013 02:39 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 16.05.13 12:20, Chris Murphy (lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:There have been no crashes, so ext4 doesn't need fsck on every boot: 4.051s systemd-fsck-root.service 515ms systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-09c66d01\x2d8126\x2d39c2\x2db7b8\x2d25f14cbd35af.serviceWell, but only fsck itself knows that and can determine this from the superblock. Hence we have to start it first and it will then exit quickly if the fs wasn't dirty. Note that these times might be misleading: if fsck takes this long to check the superblock and exit this might be a result of something else which runs in parallel monopolizing CPU or IO (for example readahead), and might not actually be fsck's own fault.
We really should not need to run fsck on boot unless the mount fails. Might save some time at the cost of a bit of extra complexity?
Ric
and no oops, so this seems unnecessary: 1.092s abrt-uefioops.servicehttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963182and I'm not using LVM so these seem unnecessary: 2.783s lvm2-monitor.service 489ms systemd-udev-settle.service 15ms lvm2-lvmetad.service How do I determine what component to file a bug against? I guess I have to find the package that caused these .service files to be installed?$ repoquery --qf="%{sourcerpm}" --whatprovides '*/lib/systemd/system/lvm2-monitor.service' lvm2-2.02.98-8.fc19.src.rpm Please file a bug against the "lvm2" package. And make sure to add it to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963210 Hmm, on your machine, what does "systemctl show -p WantedBy -p RequiredBy systemd-udev-settle.service" show? This will tell us which package is actually responsible for pulling in systemd-udev-settle.service. Thanks! Lennart
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
