Re: [EXT] Re: Re: "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing" issue

[Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 3:38 PM Windl, Ulrich <u.windl@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Top-posting this time:
> Reading the manual carefully, I recognized an asymmetry:
> OnActiveSec= defines a timer relative to the moment the timer itself is activated.
> OnUnitInactiveSec= defines a timer relative to when the unit the timer is activating was last deactivated.
>
> Also the manual des not state WHERE that state is remembered.
>

Did you try to search for the Persistent= directive? Without
persistence, the state is lost when systemd is restarted (may be
daemon-reload keeps it).

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: systemd-devel <systemd-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
> > Behalf Of Windl, Ulrich
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 10:26 AM
> > To: Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>; Mantas Mikulėnas
> > <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [EXT] Re:  Re: "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing"
> > issue
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 1:19 PM
> > > To: Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Windl, Ulrich <u.windl@xxxxxx>; systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [EXT] Re:  "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing"
> > issue
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:12 PM Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Furthermore it seems to be necessary to run the service unit itself,  too
> > > (assuming it must be enabled also, right?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No. The purpose of the timer is to start the service, so starting the service
> > > manually (or "enabling" it, to be started on boot) would be redundant.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OnUnitInactiveSec begins counting when service gets stopped. How is
> > > this timer supposed to start a service that was never active (and
> > > hence never stopped) before?
> > [Windl, Ulrich]
> >
> > OK, so what would you suggest instead?
> > Alternatively, can you explain where OnUnitInactiveSec would make sense?
>