On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 09:53:58PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Since systemd starts everything in parallel, which service should > ctrl+c apply to?
In this situation, systemd gives the distinct impression that all other jobs have started, and it is now waiting for just one. A countdown timer is displayed (screenshot attached). So I don't think there's any doubt as to what the user *expects* ^C to do here: interrupt the wait. As a minor aside, I've also attached a screenshot of the same situation on a jessie system, the difference being that stretch clears the screen right before. Is that intentional, or worth filing another bug over? > What you want is emergency.target for a case like yours. > > Add "emergency" or systemd.unit=emergency.target to the kernel command > line for that. This works great, thank you. > It waits for the device to show up. A heuristic which concludes from the > device name whether a device still can show up or not sounds very > brittle to me and thus not a good idea. Yeah, you're right. The ideal behavior IMO would be to display what is happening (already done, and rather nicely) and allow the user/operator to choose whether or not to wait. Since legacy init allowed this via ^C, it even seems like a reasonable expectation. For me personally, reducing this timeout to 3 seconds instead of 90 would seem to be a decent workaround, along with the emergency target. That being said, I still think I have a valid wishlist item here, at the very least. As things stand now, is the 90 seconds really a sane default? I can imagine some cases in which it'd be better than 3, but none of them seem typical. The same thing applies to shutdown; a database server might need that long to shut down, but waiting more than 15 or so for any old process seems like a waste of time. > For missing swap devices it does not drop you into rescue mode. Missing > file systems on the other hand will trigger rescue mode. I assume this > is a reasonable choice. > > The error will show up in the journal, fwiw. That's fair enough. Personally, I think an aborted boot would be better than being surprised by missing swap in the (unlikely) event it's actually needed. I assume I could change this, though, if I actually cared to. Thanks again, -nd.
_______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
