[systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

[Mantas Mikulėnas]

Well, this sounds like your service should have some equivalent to
NetworkManager's or systemd-networkd's "wait-until-online" tools.

For example, there's NetworkManager-wait-online.service which blocks until
NM has configured at least one connection fully, so other services can
order against it (usually via network-online.target).

(In fact, this sounds like you're talking about NetworkManager...)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 12:42 george Karakou <mad-proffessor at hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On 04/26/2016 09:35 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM, george Karakou<mad-proffessor at hotmail.com> <mad-proffessor at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi list, how are you all? I hope everyone is doing well.
> I have a long starting unit that executes some(many actually) scripts and
> with the parallel nature of systemd init process it doesn't fully start up
> before some other units i have starting after it. Meaning "After="
> directives in [Unit] section don't fully fill my needs here.
> Is there a workaround?
>
> Is Type=oneshot an option?
>
>
> I understand that this demand somewhat violates the
> parallel principle of the systemd init daemon but can it somehow be
> serialized?
> Thanks for any advice.
> _______________________________________________
> systemd-devel mailing listsystemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.orghttps://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
>
>
> The service is of type dbus and i don't know if i want to break its
> functionality(since its a system-service and registers a name on the bus).
> But thanks.
>
>
> On 04/26/2016 10:01 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM, george Karakou <
> mad-proffessor at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi list, how are you all? I hope everyone is doing well.
>> I have a long starting unit that executes some(many actually) scripts and
>> with the parallel nature of systemd init process it doesn't fully start up
>> before some other units i have starting after it. Meaning "After="
>> directives in [Unit] section don't fully fill my needs here.
>>
>
> No, that's *exactly* the case for After= directives. To disable
> parallelization for some parts of the boot process, you use Before= and
> After= – that's it.
>
> That said, if After=foo.service doesn't work properly, it usually means
> foo.service is lying to systemd about when it has "finished starting". If
> that's the case, you'd have exactly the same problems no matter what kind
> of serialization you try to enable.
>
> If your megascript starts multiple daemons, then maybe it should be split
> into several independent .service units, one for each daemon? If that's not
> acceptable, try changing it to Type=notify, and make it use `systemd-notify
> READY=1` once it's done.
>
> --
> Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity at gmail.com>
>
> This service is vital for the networking part since it adds interfaces to
> bridge, adds static arp entries and some other stuff and the point is to
> have all this networking initialization in a central unit and then start
> everything else, after the interfaces have been "upped". And since it is a
> dbus service i don't know if i want to "break" it's functionality. Anyway i
> don't see anything severely broken, like firewalls complaining of
> non-existent interfaces after they have initialized, so i am aknowledging
> this as not so high priority and i therefor thank you both.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20160426/22ed8def/attachment.html>