From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 14 12:41:10 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: jail@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AC01065694; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:41:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de [217.11.53.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C958FC18; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:41:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (pD9E2CF17.dip.t-dialin.net [217.226.207.23]) by mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08FDA844E74; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:41:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891F29A778; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:41:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1263472860; bh=63h8xmBr7JhbdYx/bL6HJYV/yBwlEIBMP1Bg8jGJAgg=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=QlsCQk76enwGyR9r9C/8XeHpQgokeHnAxqrxKn0TtoXferBwK4666T2V4mGOdGGIy wGseyYM2EwfT1RjpJ7BHkinH6FLOMyyi3WkpnLt8A9Ptf2Kdi8eoEo5FXeuHNvlwN1 BhGyNkviCtD8ekvWhVY/wk20k1j9OzOpQ3epN6ULA4hbvkVr/yRO8FCGojCb/cSzd8 Ee+ljXmoUHoPb1DXeOiYbA2ETH4yNSh91ihSKVu3Qrx7CQxIuoCIT03Twzzz1+IIhB dcyqg3vxsd3mtrt/6pI4CX/XlfvRQTzaypWuxxSXTJRPjELCo5i9zasNoyIAKRuXNQ YbsXvyTgBPArQ== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.3/8.13.8/Submit) id o0ECex53071700; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:40:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:40:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20100114134059.1929551uvux5y3wo@webmail.leidinger.net> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:40:59 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> References: <20091207080353.66241t4vpmnmrilc@webmail.leidinger.net> <20100105112447.00005e71@unknown> <4B43184E.1010106@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <4B43184E.1010106@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Dynamic Internet Messaging Program (DIMP) H3 (1.1.4) X-EBL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-EBL-MailScanner-ID: 08FDA844E74.076C7 X-EBL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-EBL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, spamhaus-ZEN, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.44, required 6, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00) X-EBL-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-EBL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1264077666.15659@5lc/GqeKMOxOVw05CE/swg X-EBL-Spam-Status: No Cc: jail@freebsd.org, remko@freebsd.org Subject: Re: starting jails in the background & dependencies X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:41:10 -0000 Quoting Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> (from Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:45:34 +0100): > Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:03:53 +0100 Alexander Leidinger >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> now that jails are started in the background (which is good, to >> >> I just realized yesterday that it also stops in parallel (in the >> background). This is bad. It may be the case that a jail is not fully >> stopped via the rc scripts when the OS decides to kill the remaining >> processes during a shutdown. >> >> My first reaction is to only allow to start in the background, but >> everything else needs to be serialized. >> >> Any objections or better ideas out there? > > Maybe stopping can be done in parallel, but rc script should wait > (in loop) until all jails are stopped or some configurable timeout > (for example 60 seconds). Feel free to come up with a proof of concept... but the timeout on stop should be "forever" IMO. If you have a busy software which needs to be shutdown correctly for data safety or consistency reasons, I do not want that a reboot or shutdown prevents the correct shutdown. Bye, Alexander. -- Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137