5 ms·
Again, don't be deceived into judging an architecture by its public interface. It certainly appears similarly, but the dependency and ordering primitives are in
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Again, don't be deceived into judging an architecture by its public interface. It certainly appears similarly, but the dependency and ordering primitives are interpreted much more loosely like tags than they are like absolute requirements.
Simplifying things, your unit file actually becomes a Unit object which queues a job (which is itself a Unit) which is scheduled and checked for consistency in a transaction, which encapsulates a service (itself a Unit and one that controls jobs). The final graph of dependency information largely does not reflect what you configured.
- simoncion 11y ago> It certainly appears similarly, but the dependency and ordering primitives are interpreted much more loosely like tags than they are like absolute requirements. Ah. That would be the "subtlety" that I was missing. Thanks! :) As an aside: how terrible it is to provide an interface that makes it look it gives you ordering guarantees when -in actuality- it gives you no such thing! :(
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoWell, in fairness, the developers are honest about it. But they perhaps do not make it as obvious they should, and a lot of people are fooled (I'd cynically argue to the benefit of the systemd developers).
- pc2g4d 11y agoSo how does this work? Wouldn't ntpd sometimes start before networking, for example? Why is this not a bigger issue?