On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 06:45:17PM -0400, bruce wrote:
> Hey David..
>
> Thanks for the thoughts on this...
>
> Would you mind posting/pasting what your code/shell scripts are/is.. I'm sure
> someone will need something similar in life!
Well, I have. And you have regurgitated them below (in you
"David A. De Graaf" writes:
> Only when the remote machine fails to respond is the nfs umount
> command blocked. It then waits for a response that will not and
> cannot come. That's what's dumb.
I've had this happen to me. I even waited about 20 minutes to see if it
would *ever* time out. It
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 06:34:55PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> David A. De Graaf wrote:
>
> > systemd and autofs/nfs are at war and have been ever since systemd
> > appeared.
> >
> > Specifically, if machine A has an open connection to machine B
> > and B goes down or become inaccessible, then A c
On 16/07/28 18:52, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:43:09 -0400
bruce wrote:
But, the whole systemd/dnf stuff... is that really useful, as opposed to
the philosophy of some of the other flavors?
There is no other flavor. Systemd will assimilate you. Every
distro uses it now (as near
David A. De Graaf wrote:
> systemd and autofs/nfs are at war and have been ever since systemd
> appeared.
>
> Specifically, if machine A has an open connection to machine B
> and B goes down or become inaccessible, then A cannot shutdown.
> A's shutdown sequence hangs, waiting for B to respond to
Hey Tom!
So.. If I undertand the overall point. Most linux flavors are more or less
moving in the same direction.. Just some a bit faster than others..
Heaven or Hell!!
Thanks
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:43:09 -0400
> bruce wrote:
>
> > But, t
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:43:09 -0400
bruce wrote:
> But, the whole systemd/dnf stuff... is that really useful, as opposed to
> the philosophy of some of the other flavors?
There is no other flavor. Systemd will assimilate you. Every
distro uses it now (as near as I can tell). DNF is totally separat
Hey David..
Thanks for the thoughts on this...
Would you mind posting/pasting what your code/shell scripts are/is.. I'm
sure someone will need something similar in life!
-Peace!
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:26 PM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:53:34PM -0400, Tom Horsley
Hey guys...
Not to start a flame war...
But I've looked at different linux flavors.. ubuntu/mint/centos/etc.. and
I'm thinking of taking the step to centos 7/fed24(or whatever it is...)
But, the whole systemd/dnf stuff... is that really useful, as opposed to
the philosophy of some of the other f
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:53:34PM -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:37:41 -0400
> David A. De Graaf wrote:
>
> > Have I overlooked something obvious? Is there a way to make systemd
> > perform the simple function 'shutdown' smoothly, reliably and quickly?
> > If anyone knows h
On 07/28/2016 11:53 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:37:41 -0400
> David A. De Graaf wrote:
>
>> Have I overlooked something obvious? Is there a way to make systemd
>> perform the simple function 'shutdown' smoothly, reliably and quickly?
>> If anyone knows how, I would love to h
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:37:41 -0400
David A. De Graaf wrote:
> Have I overlooked something obvious? Is there a way to make systemd
> perform the simple function 'shutdown' smoothly, reliably and quickly?
> If anyone knows how, I would love to hear it.
I can't make systemd itself work, but I've
systemd and autofs/nfs are at war and have been ever since systemd
appeared.
Specifically, if machine A has an open connection to machine B
and B goes down or become inaccessible, then A cannot shutdown.
A's shutdown sequence hangs, waiting for B to respond to an unmount
command, which will not/ca
13 matches
Mail list logo
