[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Networkmanager service is shutdown too early



On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 09:42 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 19:47 +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:46:42PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 13:41 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >>>> Dan Williams (dcbw redhat com) said: 
> >>>>> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 10:54 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> >>>>>> During the boot I have some samba shares mounted because I have them
> >>>>>> configured to mount via fstab file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When I shutdown or reboot I get a screen for 2-3 minutes that shows
> >>>>>> smbfs service trying to unmount samba shares but NM service has
> >>>>>> already shutdown and there is no working network connection :(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have seen this "bad" behaviour in F8 and have reported it on this
> >>>>>> mailinglist, but I hoped that the new and smarter NM would take care
> >>>>>> of it, but unfortunately it didn't :(
> >>>>> Probably need to adjust the stop priorities of NM and haldaemon to be
> >>>>> right after messagebus (K85) rather than where they currently are...
> >>>>> The problem is that NM is being stopped to early.
> >>>> 'After netfs' should be good enough. Although netfs stop should possibly
> >>>> do lazy umounts.
> >>> Ok, just need to bump NM a few bits later it looks like; might as well
> >>> be K84 to be right after messagebus.
> >> Why not go all the way to 90 as network to be on the safe side? With a
> >> quick look I can see some scripts that might not be happy if the network
> >> is down with a priority above 84, racoon/dund/rdisc/rpcgssd/nasd for example.
> > 
> > NM depend on messagebus at least, so we should stop NM right before
> > messagebus.  But the same issues with startup are theoretically present
> > with shutdown, meaning that since messagebus depends on rsyslog, and
> > rsyslog depends on network.  Standard installs don't use networked
> > syslog, so standard installs don't actually need rsyslog to depend on
> > network, but because rsyslog isn't smart enough to know when it does or
> > does not depend on network, we can't just re-order the chain... :(
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> 
> Dan what is the conclusion about this bug? This is a looong thread but 
> nothing is updated on bugzilla page so is there some consensus on what 
> needs to be done?

Can you test out:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=646433

when it's done?

Thanks!
Dan


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]