On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:46 -0500 Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > That's doable simply by dropping this patch. I think it'll make this more fragile, but if that's the consensus, I'll go along with it. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
