On 19/1/17 6:11 am, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:02:28 +1100
Stephen Morris wrote:
> Given
> that both the CIFS and NFS mount points are being mounted in parallel it
> is now potentially looking like SYSTEMD is problematic in its ability to
> handle those mounts in parallel properly.
Nah, it isn't parallel mounting, it is systemd having absolutely no
idea what "up" means for networking. I find network mounts are totally
random on all systemd based systems, and I've taken to saying "noauto" in
all network mount options and putting stuff like this in /etc/rc.d/rc.local
/bin/bash -c 'sleep 25 ; mount -t nfs -a' > /dev/null 2>&1 <
/dev/null &
I thought they were being mounted in parallel because in boot.log I
see
the mount attempts for both mount points immediately following each
other, and where they both work I see the successful mount message for
both one after the other at a later point in the boot sequence. I have
listed the fstab mount entries below.
192.168.1.12:/mnt/HD/HD_a2 /mnt/nfs nfs
users,noatime,nolock,bg,sec=sys,tcp,timeo=1800,_netdev,rw 0 0
#192.168.1.12:/HD/HD_a2 /mnt/nfs nfs defaults 0 0
//192.168.1.12/Volume_1 /mnt/nas cifs
username=steve,password=steve,cache=strict,_netdev,rw 0 0
The boot log output is also below.
Mounting /mnt/nfs...
Mounting /mnt/nas...
Starting Notify NFS peers of a restart...
Starting SYSV: Late init script for live image....
[[0;32m OK [0m] Started Availability of block devices.
[[0;32m OK [0m] Started SYSV: Late init script for live image..
[[0;32m OK [0m] Started Notify NFS peers of a restart.
[[0;32m OK [0m] Mounted /mnt/nfs.
[[0;32m OK [0m] Mounted /mnt/nas.
What I don't understand is when there is a problem why it is always the
CIFS mount that is the one that fails, I would have expected it to be
random as to which one is the one that fails.
regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org