[systemd-devel] Stricter handling of failing mounts during boot under systemd - crap idea !

jon jon at jonshouse.co.uk
Mon Jun 29 15:23:27 PDT 2015

> A mount on /var is clearly essential, as area pretty much all mounts
> below /var, though there might be exceptions. Mounts in /srv are
> essential, too. Mounts which are often non-essential are external
> media, USB sticks and suchlike. However, those are probably usually
> handled via something like udisks, and only in exceptions via
> /etc/fstab.
Desktop users maybe. Like I said very very rarely use a GUI on a server,
when I do it is often only partially via ssh -X from a machine at a
different physical location.

I stick in a USB device, tail /var/log/messages, do fdisk -l <device>
then mount the FS by hand ..... It may not be common anymore, but it is
not wrong !

>  That together is already indication that the current
> behaviour should be the default when you don't specify something
> anything.
> Three other reasons are: "nofail" already exists in util-linux for a
> long time, and there is not "fail" option defined, hence for systemd
> too the "nofail" case is the opt-in and "fail" is the default. And the
> other is: changing behaviour forth and back and forth and back is
> just wrong. The behaviour systemd exposes has been this way for 5y
> now, and we shouldn't change it without a really string reason -- but
> I am pretty sure your specific usecase does not qualify.
> Also, again, "nofail" predates systemd: you should have used it for
> your usecase even in sysvinit. If you so will, then the old setup was
> already borked for you, even though admittedly the effect was less
> fatal.
No I don't agree, if something is a warning - then it is ONLY a
warning ! - not borked !

An entry in fstab that does not match a mount is just that, an entry ..
not a failure, or a miss-configuration, it is simply not present ! 
What about a reference to an external USB drive that is off, it is not a
faulty reference, it just not currently the state of the machine. 

To me (and most people) fstab is not "what is" it "what is now and what
may be", it is not real time so it is just a complete description of
what is now and a description of what will be later...

I can place an entry in fstab while I mkfs on the disk referenced, I
often do - I maintain that this is not wrong - it is not mounted !, just
not present yet.

My guess is we are not going to agree but thanks at least for the


More information about the systemd-devel mailing list