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

Re: Networkmanager service is shutdown too early

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 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?


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