On 12/14/2011 11:00 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > 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. > If that is the only fragile part then I you are in very good shape! ;-) Thanks again! 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
