[12:17] hmm I make some progress in the bug I am hunting. I an now reproduces it [12:18] I have 3 jobs files (2 service and one "state" ) http://www.paste-it.net/raw/public/g3fbeff/ called test_state_exportfs test_service_exportfs and test_service_userfs [12:18] the exportfs "service" gets stated before the stop of the userfs [12:19] when I run a start test_state_exportfs [12:20] this is because my userfs is defined to stop on test_state_exportfs AND stop on test_service_exportfs [12:22] when I issue a start test_state_exportfs the "userfs" is going in a stopping state and upstart does not wait for it to be stopped before it starts the exportfs service [12:23] http://www.paste-it.net/public/ve5305c/ shows that (ouput of initctl events) you see that topped test_service_userfs ok [12:23] is printed after started test_service_exportfs [14:21] keesj: I'll look presently [15:01] Do you understand what I am trying to explain? [15:04] it looks like because the "state" service already puts the userfs service in a "stopping mode" that a check upon start of the exportfs service it does not wait for the userfs service because that one is not "running" [15:16] I haven't read it yet [17:16] ok [17:16] reading now [17:17] test_service_exportfs - this will start before test_state_exportfs [17:17] test_service_userfs - this will stop before either test_state_exportfs or test_service_exportfs [17:18] you run [17:18] start test_state_exportfs [17:18] I would expect to see test_service_exportfs starting->running followed by test_state_exportfs starting->running [17:19] that appears to me to be what your events output shows? [17:26] http://rafb.net/p/HxXtYN53.html [17:26] WFM [17:26] I started test_service_userfs [17:26] then started test_state_exportfs [17:27] that stopped userfs, started service_exportfs, and then concluded starting state_exportfs [17:29] sadmac2: built it for f9/f10. didn't add anything in bodhi for it [17:29] notting: ok [17:30] sadmac2: there's a -21 because i didn't add a changelog the first time [17:30] notting: yeah, I forgot that bit :) [17:31] notting: If you want to test em a bit you can. Other than "does telinit u cause explosions" theres nothing to look for [17:37] keesj: I think you're just getting confused because you're looking at the order of resulting evefnts [17:37] keesj: upstart tends to focus on one service at a time, so it's not unusual to see events in what might appear to be out-of-order [17:37] keesj: use initctl jobs for debugging instead [18:26] I know there is inictl restart in 0.5, but is there a 'restart' aswell? Just as 'start' etc. that is. [18:26] In that case, can you 'restart job1 job2 job3' (just as you can start multiple ones) [18:27] If so, that's fucking awesome :-] Man I hate Ubuntu 8.04 uses 0.3.9 [19:39] plundra: there is if you make a symlink to it [19:40] it was added sufficiently late that the symlink isn't there by default, but it probably should be [20:33] re [20:34] Keybuk it really happens that the userfs service is not stopped(still stopping) while the export service is started [20:37] in you paste line 12 the export service is starting and line 13 only hte userfs is stopped [20:40] and only in line 19 the service is stopped [20:41] while at that point the service exportfs clearly looks like running [20:54] I will have more time tomotow , I will test on 0.5 [20:55] keesj: I don't understand what you're trying to tell me [20:55] in my paste, I start test_state_exportfs [20:56] it *clearly* waits for test_service_userfs to stop *and* for test_service_exportfs to start [20:56] indeed but not for userfs to stop before is starts exportfs [20:56] yes, it clearly does [20:57] line 19, test_service_userfs (stop) waiting [20:57] userfs has fully stopped [20:57] line 20, test_state_exportfs (start) pre-start, process 10490 [20:57] exportfs actually begins to start [20:58] this is working as intended [20:58] how are you expecting it to work? [20:59] I expect service_userfs to be fully stopped before service_exportfs starts [20:59] that's exactly what's happening [20:59] I don't understand your confusion [21:00] line 19, service_userfs is *fully* stopped [21:00] line 20, state_exportfs starts [21:00] there's nothing in your job to cause service_userfs to wait on service_exportfs? [21:01] the "stop on starting test_state_exportfs" is the key one [21:02] ah [21:02] do you think that having two "stop on" means "and" ? [21:02] (it doesn't - it means or) [21:02] you would need to use 0.5 for the behaviour you want [21:02] *and* your clause is wrong anyway if you want service_exportfs fully started [21:03] stop on starting test_state_exportfs and started test_service_exportfs [21:05] what I want is that when i start state_exportfs is FIRST userfs gets fully stopped and after that only the service_exportfs get started starts. [21:05] that is why i added the second stop on starting exportfs [21:05] then service_exportfs needs "stopped userfs" [21:06] right [21:06] start on starting test_state_exportfs and stopped test_service_userfs [21:06] 0.5 only [21:07] but 0.5 can only have one start line right? [21:07] right [21:08] Keybuk: I am about to head out, but have you looked at my crude little state machine lately? [21:08] is the implementation helping any? [21:08] sadmac2: no, haven't looked at all [21:08] (I'm going to write a manpage/user document after I get a little more into it) [21:08] ah [21:08] well there's enough there now to be worthwhile [21:09] keesj: only 0.5 has "and" behaviour [21:09] in 0.3 everything is "or" [21:09] and "or" doesn't give you what you want [21:12] well or is fine for me but apparently at the moment upstart starts the service_userfs it does not stop service_userfs. because (and I am guessing) the service_userfs is in "not started" mode. [21:15] off to bed now [21:15] no [21:15] nothing to do with that [21:15] it doesn't wait because nothing tells it to [21:16] you don't have any instruction for upstart to wait [21:16] it won't wait because you haven't told it to [21:16] it doesn't know what you're thinking ;) [23:26] Keybuk: Ok, sweet :-) [23:26] Too bad not even the upcoming Ubuntu 9.04 or Debian experimental has 0.5 yet (!) [23:27] plundra: I'm not particularly planning to put 0.5 into Ubuntu [23:28] Keybuk: Bleh, why not? :-) [23:28] restart would pretty nifty [23:28] And from what I read in the changes, loads of other stuff were redone etc. [23:29] the userspace was never really finished [23:29] and 0.5 has various other problems [23:29] none of its new features help Ubuntu [23:29] and I'd rather spend my effort working on 0.10 [23:29] Ok, I see. [23:29] So what's planned for 0.10? :-D [23:32] lots [23:33] Mkay, rewrites again? (Lots of stuff was remade for 0.5, right?) [23:35] the main change is dropping "start on"/"stop on" [23:36] Oh, ok.