On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Mon, 10.04.17 19:07, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>> > So no, "freeze" is not an option. That sounds like a recipe to make
>> > shutdown hang. We need a sync() that actually does what is documented
>> > and sync t
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> This is specifically the case that happened for Plymouth: the binary
> probably got updated, hence the process in memory references a deleted
> file, which blocks the read-only remounting, in which case we can't do
> anything, and sync
I had an accident last night. I tried to delete a lot of rows from a
production database in one transaction. I killed the transaction, and
I didn't realise it was still rolling back an hour later when I tried
to reboot the system for updates.
I might be wrong about exactly who is doing what, but I
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:54:27 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> On Mon, 10.04.17 13:43, Kai Krakow ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:04:45 +0200
> > schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> >
> [...]
> > >
> > > Yeah, we do what we can.
> > >
> > > But I seriously doubt F
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:46:02 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> On Mon, 10.04.17 12:41, Kai Krakow ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > > Queries and responses in LLMNR are supposed to be delayed by a
> > > random time up to 100ms according to the RFC. See:
> > >
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/ht
On Mon, 10.04.17 13:43, Kai Krakow ([email protected]) wrote:
> Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:04:45 +0200
> schrieb Lennart Poettering :
>
> > > Remember, all of this is because there *is* software that does the
> > > wrong thing, and it *is* possible for software to hang and be
> > > unkillable. It
On Mon, 10.04.17 13:50, Kai Krakow ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > According to RFC2119, the terminology SHOULD suggests that systemd
> > > could maybe make this configurable? Maybe taking the proper
> > > warnings for this configuration into account for administrators...
> > > Still you would
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:04:45 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> > Remember, all of this is because there *is* software that does the
> > wrong thing, and it *is* possible for software to hang and be
> > unkillable. It would be good for systemd to do the right thing even
> > in the presence of th
On Mon, 10.04.17 19:07, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> > So no, "freeze" is not an option. That sounds like a recipe to make
> > shutdown hang. We need a sync() that actually does what is documented
> > and sync the file system properly.
>
> sync() is never going to work the wa
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 19:38, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun
On Mon, 10.04.17 12:41, Kai Krakow ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Queries and responses in LLMNR are supposed to be delayed by a random
> > time up to 100ms according to the RFC. See:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4795 section 2.7, and section 7.
> >
> > If you add up the delay for t
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:26:14 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> On Sun, 09.04.17 19:22, Paul Freeman ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > We are seeing high latency (>100ms) when resolving local names via
> > LLMNR.
>
> Queries and responses in LLMNR are supposed to be delayed by a r
On Mon, 10.04.17 19:38, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Cha
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 17:21, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
Or, I think, when pivoting back to the shutdown-initramfs. (Though then you
also need the shutdown-initramfs to run `fsfreeze`, I guess?)
No, I don't think it should be done
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
Don't forget, they've provided an interface for softwa
On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> >
> > > Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it
> > > needs
> > > m
On Mon, 10.04.17 17:21, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Or, I think, when pivoting back to the shutdown-initramfs. (Though then you
> > also need the shutdown-initramfs to run `fsfreeze`, I guess?)
>
> No, I don't think it should be done then. If a filesystem is still in use,
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 16:14, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what we want there? it
appears
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it needs
more than the guarantees provided by sync. Informally speaking, the FIFREEZE
ioctl is intended to pl
On Mon, 10.04.17 16:14, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what we want there? it
> > > appears to also pause any further
On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman ([email protected]) wrote:
> Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it needs
> more than the guarantees provided by sync. Informally speaking, the FIFREEZE
> ioctl is intended to place a filesystem into a "fully consistent" s
On Sun, 09.04.17 22:37, Chris Murphy ([email protected]) wrote:
> Oh god - that's the opposite direction to go in. There's not even
> pretend crash safety with those file systems. If they're dirty, you
> must use an fsck to get them back to consistency. Even if the toy fs
> support found in
On Sun, 09.04.17 19:22, Paul Freeman ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hi,
> We are seeing high latency (>100ms) when resolving local names via
> LLMNR.
Queries and responses in LLMNR are supposed to be delayed by a random
time up to 100ms according to the RFC. See:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Michael Chapman
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what we want there? it
appears to also pause a
24 matches
Mail list logo
