this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
771 points (95.5% liked)

linuxmemes

21192 readers
585 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    771
    Average systemd debate (lemmy.world)
    submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    A typo in fstab shouldn't wreck the system. Why is that not resilient ? I added an extra mount point to an empty partition but forgot to actually create it in LVM.

    During boot, device not found and boot halted, on a computer with no monitor/keyboard

    [–] BaumGeist@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    It will cause a critical error during boot if the device isn't given the nofail mount option, which is not included in the defaults option, and then fails to mount. For more details, look in the fstab(5) man page, and for even more detail, the mount(8) man page.

    Found that out for myself when not having my external harddrive enclosure turned on with a formatted drive in it caused the pc to boot into recovery mode (it was not the primary drive). I had just copy-pasted the options from my root partition, thinking I could take the shortcut instead of reading documentation.

    There's probably other ways that a borked fstab can cause a fail to boot, but that's just the one I know of from experience.

    [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    Cool ! The default should smarter than bork by default.

    [–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

    Its a 'failsafe' , like if part of the system depends on that drive mounting then if it fails then don't continue. Not the expected default, but probably made sense at some point. Like if brakes are broken don't allow starting truck, type failsafe.

    [–] wormer@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Yea like the default is smart? How is it supposed to know if that's critical or not at that point? The alternative is for it to silently fail and wait for something else to break instead of failing gracefully? I feel like I'm growing more and more petty and matching the language of systemd haters but like just think about it for a few minutes????

    [–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    the default is smart

    Looking at the systems that are supported, it makes the greatest sense to have the safest failure mode as default. If fault tolerance is available, that can be handled in the entry but, it makes sense but to assume. Having that capability built into the default adds more complexity and reduces support for systems that are not tolerant of a missing mount.

    [–] wormer@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

    Sorry if it looked otherwise, I was agreeing to BCsven. I agree with you

    [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

    The system failed for no good reason, failing is exactly what it should never ever do. If it had just continued, everything would have been fine.

    [–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Edit: just saw your other comment, so this may not apply to you now....Not that the default is smart, but the default has been set to fail a boot if parts are missing. Imagine a rocket launch system check, is temperature system online, no, fail and abort. While as users -- for convenience--we want the system to boot even though a drive went offline, that may not be best default for induatrial applications. Or where another system relylies on first one to be up and coherent. So we have to use the nofail option, to contine the boot on missing drive.