From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 5 10:45:39 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 6EF08106568F for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:45:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E628FC15 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.codelab.cz [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D417F19E045; Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:45:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r5bb235.net.upc.cz [86.49.61.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FBCF19E044; Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:45:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B43184E.1010106@quip.cz> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:45:34 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091206 SeaMonkey/2.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <20091207080353.66241t4vpmnmrilc@webmail.leidinger.net> <20100105112447.00005e71@unknown> In-Reply-To: <20100105112447.00005e71@unknown> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:45:39 -0000 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). Miroslav Lachman