From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: multipathd.init Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:22:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20050410192200.GM12752@marowsky-bree.de> References: <20050401204048.GI14307@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <1112389744.8118.26.camel@zezette> <20050401211902.GL14307@agk.surrey.redhat.com> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050401211902.GL14307@agk.surrey.redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: device-mapper development List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 2005-04-01T22:19:02, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:09:04PM +0200, christophe varoqui wrote: > > Do we really want to do complicated things to close that window ? I > > would guess not. > =20 > In other words, if the paths can't survive the window between initrd=20 > running and init scripts completing, the machine doesn't deserve to boo= t. >=20 > And if you want the daemon in single-user mode, you can start it by han= d. >=20 > Fair point. >=20 > So is there ever a requirement to run the daemon while /var is read-onl= y? We ran into the same problem, and just decided to invoke /sbin/multipath once during the boot/ sequence, and then start the daemon in the runlevel itself. Note that LSB apparently also suggests that no unneeded daemons are running in single-user mode; but I couldn't find that detailed anywhere else. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e --=20 High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business