On 12/14/2011 10:37 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:29:49 -0500 > Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/14/2011 10:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:09:04 -0500 >>> Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/14/2011 08:57 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: >>>>> Generally, we want this daemon started before nfsd starts. Deal with the >>>>> situation where the pipe hasn't shown up yet. >>>> This can be done with your systemd start up script. Plus I'm not sure its >>>> a good idea to steal cpu cycles waiting for an event that may never happen... >>>> >>> >>> Presumably you just wouldn't start the daemon if you have no intent to >>> use it. >>> >>> It does sleep 1s between each check, so the time is fairly minimal, >>> but I'm definitely open to doing this differently. What may be >>> reasonable is adding code to the daemon to check and see if the >>> v4recoverydir is present. If it is, then just exit. Otherwise, wait for >>> the pipe to show up. >> Why just let the systemd scrips worry about the order of when to start >> things up... To be honest, that is one thing systemd does do fairly well. >> > > Because not everyone uses systemd, and we have to deal with the > "legacy" case too for the transition phase. > > It's generally preferable not to start up nfsd until everything it > needs is up. If we do what you suggest, then we're basically mandating > that this daemon can't start until nfsd is up and running. Order has ways been a part of how and when things are started which have always been handled by initscripts. That's their job, to start things in the correct order. I understand you want to make the daemon bullet proof... but starting things up in the wrong order is an error... IMHO... > > Could you give some details on how you think this ought to work? > I would think a error message stating unable to open whatever and then say something like please make sure the nfs server is up and running, would work... It seems to me this is a pretty common way of handling this type of situation.... although I can not come up with a explicit example, atm. steved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
