| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 08:28:42PM +0100, Andrea Conti wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> It had a "little" problem in resolving the dependencies of a newly |
| 4 |
> introduced boot service that created a cycle and caused the boot process |
| 5 |
> to hang (almost) forever with rc_parallel=YES. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on |
| 8 |
> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and |
| 9 |
> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected |
| 10 |
> to be completely and consistently broken, either. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an hour |
| 13 |
> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working state. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
waltdnes@d531 ~ $ head /etc/rc.conf |
| 16 |
# Global OpenRC configuration settings |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
# Set to "YES" if you want the rc system to try and start services |
| 19 |
# in parallel for a slight speed improvement. When running in parallel we |
| 20 |
# prefix the service output with its name as the output will get |
| 21 |
# jumbled up. |
| 22 |
# WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock |
| 23 |
# the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply |
| 24 |
# patches that fix it without breaking other things! |
| 25 |
#rc_parallel="NO" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This alone would is enough to deter me from running it. The potential |
| 28 |
problems aren't worth it for a few seconds faster bootup. It appears |
| 29 |
that even the developers don't dare to run it on their machines... nuff |
| 30 |
said. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
Archives