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

["Windl, Ulrich" <u.windl@xxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 4:11 PM
> To: Windl, Ulrich <u.windl@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>; systemd-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Re:  Re: "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not
> firing" issue
> 
> 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).
[Windl, Ulrich] 

Andrei,

thanks for the tip. Of course you can search everything, but it would be better if the systemd.time manual page would summarize the important points (for users coming from cron).

Ulrich

> 
> > > -----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?
> >