[systemd-devel] how to support strict ordering going up and down?

[Andrei Borzenkov]

Отправлено с iPhone

> 1 сент. 2015 г., в 21:39, Nekrasov, Alexander <alexander.nekrasov at emc.com> написал(а):
> 
> Take the following structure:
>  
> A.service:
> Requires=base.service
> Type=fork
> Restarts=no
>  
> B.service:
> Requires=base.service
> Type=fork
> Restarts=no
> After=A
>  
> C.service:
> Requires=base.service
> Type=fork
> Restarts=no
> After=B
>  
> Up.target:
> Requires=A B C
>  
> Normally, systemctl start up.target brings up base, A, B, C, in the correct order. Similarly, systemctl stop base.service brings down C B A, in correct order. All is well.
>  
> 1)      If A or B fails to start (return 1 from ExecStart), they assume Active: failed state, but the stack continues to start regardless. I expected that Requires= would mean that up.target would stop and start-up would be interrupted.

There is no Requires dependency between A, B and C. So up.target will fail (because one of required units failed) but it does not affect what happens to A, B or C.


> How can I achieve that?

If B requires A it has to say so.

> Adding up.target::Requisite=A B C doesn’t change anything.
>  
> a.      This is a simplified example. In reality I have tens of components that only know their immediate dependency, but not the whole chain. Adding explicit C::Requires=B would solve this for when B fails, but imagine there’s an F::After=E where F must not Require=E (i.e., F must not stop if E fails), then such F will start even if B failed to start.  So I would have to add a F::Requires=B, and propagate that through the entire stack. And then do the same to A and C, etc. Doesn’t seem very scalable or flexible.
>  
> 2)      If b fails, and then later I stop the base service, shutdown is out of order. C and A stop in parallel, or even C stops after A. It seems like breaking the chain anywhere in the stack breaks the dependency tree at least in that place. In other words, ordering C->B->A doesn’t mean translate into C->A if B fails before stopping is initiated. How can I fix that?

If C can start without B being present it is logical to assume that it does not need anything before B. If C Required B, described situation would not be possible at all.


>  
> Thanks,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20150907/aa98275c/attachment.html>