On Wed, 11.05.11 17:19, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote:
>
>
> Le Lun 9 mai 2011 17:26, Tom Lane a écrit :
> >
> > Michał Piotrowski writes:
> >> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
> >> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot
Le Lun 9 mai 2011 17:26, Tom Lane a écrit :
>
> Michał Piotrowski writes:
>> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
>> order.
>
> No, it's assuming that the chkconfig numbering takes care of that.
>
Hi,
2011/5/10 Miloslav Trmač :
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10.05.11 02:17, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Lennart Poettering
>>> wrote:
>>> > Countermeasures for the /dev/shm issue? I don't know of any.
On Tue, 10.05.11 17:35, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
> Really, all I wanted to do in this subthread is to support the request
> for a release note.
> Mirek
>
> [1] How many users of Fedora would notice if the /dev/shm tmpfs was
> limited to 512MB by default? And no, I'm _not_ advocat
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Tue, 10.05.11 02:17, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > Countermeasures for the /dev/shm issue? I don't know of any. tmpfs
>> > doesn't do quota. That's the k
On Tue, 10.05.11 02:17, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 10.05.11 01:31, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 2011/5/10 Stephen John Smoogen :
> >> > Let's make this simple:
> >> >
> >> > FAQ: How can I
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> On 05/09/2011 08:38 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > a) people who manually change the IP address fo mysql to bind on
> > specific ip addresses, manually also enable
> > NetworkManager-wait-online.service.
>
> This proposal makes the assumptio
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
> Neither b) nor c) is a hack; they're both improvements in behaviour
> whether or not systemd is involved. It's simply more robust for a server
> to be able to run before the network connection is available (and hence
> across state changes). You don't
W dniu 10 maja 2011 01:23 użytkownik Stephen John Smoogen
napisał:
> 2011/5/9 Michał Piotrowski
>>
>> 2011/5/10 Lennart Poettering :
>> > On Mon, 09.05.11 23:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> No, only for /run/user/ - because there is a simple workaround that
>> >> can be use
2011/5/9 Miloslav Trmač :
> 2011/5/10 Stephen John Smoogen :
>> Let's make this simple:
>>
>> FAQ: How can I make my system unusable? How can I create a denial of service?
>>
>> Answer: On default systems there are multiple ways to do this, please
>> choose one or more of the following:
>
> That's
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Tue, 10.05.11 01:31, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>
>>
>> 2011/5/10 Stephen John Smoogen :
>> > Let's make this simple:
>> >
>> > FAQ: How can I make my system unusable? How can I create a denial of
>> > service?
>> >
>> > A
On 05/09/2011 08:38 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> a) people who manually change the IP address fo mysql to bind on
> specific ip addresses, manually also enable
> NetworkManager-wait-online.service.
This proposal makes the assumption and depends on users actually using
NetworkManager as their n
On Tue, 10.05.11 01:31, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>
> 2011/5/10 Stephen John Smoogen :
> > Let's make this simple:
> >
> > FAQ: How can I make my system unusable? How can I create a denial of
> > service?
> >
> > Answer: On default systems there are multiple ways to do this, please
>
2011/5/10 Stephen John Smoogen :
> Let's make this simple:
>
> FAQ: How can I make my system unusable? How can I create a denial of service?
>
> Answer: On default systems there are multiple ways to do this, please
> choose one or more of the following:
That's all true, on the other hand there are
2011/5/9 Michał Piotrowski
>
> 2011/5/10 Lennart Poettering :
> > On Mon, 09.05.11 23:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> No, only for /run/user/ - because there is a simple workaround that
> >> can be used on affected systems if the administrator considers his
> >> system as vul
On Tue, 10.05.11 01:04, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>
> ... rereading the thread, the thing I have missed is that we don't
> want to block startup in configurations where the server binds to
> 127.0.0.1 because the system might never come online. So there appears
> to be no universally c
On Tue, 10.05.11 00:57, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2011/5/10 Lennart Poettering :
> > On Mon, 09.05.11 23:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> No, only for /run/user/ - because there is a simple workaround that
> >> can be used on affected systems if the adm
On Tue, 10.05.11 00:23, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
> I can't see that. If I configure a server to listen on 192.168.1.1,
> and my IP address changes to 192.168.1.2 for whatever reason, how will
> I ever be notified that the configuration is incorrect? By a log entry
> in syslog?
If a
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Jason D. Clinton
wrote:
> 2011/5/9 Miloslav Trmač :
>> Is the tradeoff really "correctness vs. saving a few seconds when
>> booting a server"?
>
> You know that's not what has been said and it's not really fair of
> you.
That was a question...
> You want a serve
2011/5/10 Lennart Poettering :
> On Mon, 09.05.11 23:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> No, only for /run/user/ - because there is a simple workaround that
>> can be used on affected systems if the administrator considers his
>> system as vulnerable for malicious users.
>
> Again,
2011/5/9 Miloslav Trmač :
> Is the tradeoff really "correctness vs. saving a few seconds when
> booting a server"?
You know that's not what has been said and it's not really fair of
you. You want a server to fail on network failure; fine. Why don't you
just say that instead of characterizing it as
On Mon, 09.05.11 23:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2011/5/9 Lennart Poettering :
> > On Mon, 09.05.11 22:46, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 2011/5/9 Lennart Poettering :
> >> > On Mon, 09.05.11 18:58, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> You could have them wait for the network to be available simply by
> setting them to depend on NetworkManager-wait-online.service: but that's
> not a very good solution to anyone's problem. It's far better for them
> to be able to start up
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > a) people who manually change the IP address fo mysql to bind on
> > specific ip addresses, manually also enable
> > NetworkManager-wait-online.service.
>
> > or:
>
> > b) the servers are fixed to listen to netlink.
>
> > or:
>
> > c) They
2011/5/9 Lennart Poettering :
> On Mon, 09.05.11 22:46, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> 2011/5/9 Lennart Poettering :
>> > On Mon, 09.05.11 18:58, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Yes, mysql and postgresql are both certainly broken by this. Please
>>
On Mon, 09.05.11 17:04, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering writes:
> > So, instead of making mysql/postgres start up slower for everybody, i'd
> > rather see this solution:
>
> > a) people who manually change the IP address fo mysql to bind on
> > specific ip addresses, ma
On Mon, 09.05.11 22:46, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2011/5/9 Lennart Poettering :
> > On Mon, 09.05.11 18:58, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >> >> Yes, mysql and postgresql are both certainly broken by this. Please
> >> >> send the info, I'll take care of
Lennart Poettering writes:
> So, instead of making mysql/postgres start up slower for everybody, i'd
> rather see this solution:
> a) people who manually change the IP address fo mysql to bind on
> specific ip addresses, manually also enable
> NetworkManager-wait-online.service.
> or:
> b) the
2011/5/9 Lennart Poettering :
> On Mon, 09.05.11 18:58, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> >> Yes, mysql and postgresql are both certainly broken by this. Please
>> >> send the info, I'll take care of those two.
>> >
>> > I'll create bug reports and send proposed patches later.
>> >
On Mon, 09.05.11 18:58, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> Yes, mysql and postgresql are both certainly broken by this. Please
> >> send the info, I'll take care of those two.
> >
> > I'll create bug reports and send proposed patches later.
> >
>
> Patch for MySQL
> https://bugzil
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
> 2011/5/9 Tom Lane :
>> I'd be interested to know whether the OP was using a vanilla my.cnf or
>> something custom, and exactly what failure mode he saw.
> In my case
> [mysqld]
> datadir=/home/data/mysql
> socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock
> user=mys
2011/5/9 Tom Lane :
> Reindl Harald writes:
>> Am 09.05.2011 19:09, schrieb Michał Piotrowski:
>>> W dniu 9 maja 2011 18:10 użytkownik Michal Schmidt
>>> napisał:
Are you sure that none of these services can deal with the network
connection coming up later?
>
>>> I don't know. It appear
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 09.05.2011 19:09, schrieb Micha³ Piotrowski:
>> W dniu 9 maja 2011 18:10 u¿ytkownik Michal Schmidt
>> napisa³:
>>> Are you sure that none of these services can deal with the network
>>> connection coming up later?
>> I don't know. It appears that MySQL can't deal with
W dniu 9 maja 2011 19:36 użytkownik Reindl Harald
napisał:
> i wonder that mysqld should need network in every case since most setups out
> there using
> only sockets for mysql-connections and it is a valid use-case having mysql
> on machines
> without any network
Good question - indeed, so i
Am 09.05.2011 19:09, schrieb Michał Piotrowski:
> W dniu 9 maja 2011 18:10 użytkownik Michal Schmidt
> napisał:
>> On 05/09/2011 05:02 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>>> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot
W dniu 9 maja 2011 19:21 użytkownik Orion Poplawski
napisał:
> On 05/09/2011 10:10 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> On 05/09/2011 05:02 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>>> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot proc
On 05/09/2011 10:10 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 05:02 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
>> order. I also looked at other services and here are some of
W dniu 9 maja 2011 18:10 użytkownik Michal Schmidt
napisał:
> On 05/09/2011 05:02 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
>> order. I also looked at other services and he
2011/5/9 Tomasz Torcz :
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:26:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
>> > Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>> > realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
>> > order.
>>
>> No, i
On 05/09/2011 05:02 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
> order. I also looked at other services and here are some of them that
> needs fixing:
> - memcached - (I create
W dniu 9 maja 2011 17:34 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski
napisał:
> 2011/5/9 Tom Lane :
>> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
>>> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>>> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
>>> order.
>>
>> No, it
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:26:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
> > Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
> > realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
> > order.
>
> No, it's assuming that the chkconfig
2011/5/9 Tom Lane :
> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
>> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
>> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
>> order.
>
> No, it's assuming that the chkconfig numbering takes care of that.
Do you mea
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
> Ok, I know what is happening. I looked at the init script and I
> realized that it doesn't have any LSB header info about boot process
> order.
No, it's assuming that the chkconfig numbering takes care of that.
Are you saying that systemd no longer h
W dniu 9 maja 2011 09:54 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski
napisał:
> W dniu 9 maja 2011 09:51 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski
> napisał:
>> 2011/5/9 Nicolas Mailhot :
>>>
>>>
>>> Le Lun 9 mai 2011 08:32, Michał Piotrowski a écrit :
>>>
It seems to me that this is related to that at the time of star
45 matches
Mail list logo
