[ale] Lab Workstation Mystery

[Jim Kinney]

That is odd. I have systemd machines with automount and I don't see an
individual systemd process per user. On my centos7 workstations, I have
only a single systemd process for the systemd itself plus others named like
systemd-udevd, etc, and all are root owned.
On Apr 23, 2016 11:36 AM, "Todor Fassl" <fassl.tod at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The first thing I did was add that option to the nfs mount in the autofs
> config. I thought it didn't work but back then   I didn't have as good of a
> handle on the problem as I do now.  I found bug reports related to the
> default timeout for aufs not working. The bug reports said the timeout
> worked if you set itimplicitly for each share in the autofs config files.
> But that turned out being another red-herring.
>
> I am pretty sure this is a systemd problem. I just did an experiment -- I
> killed off the processes left over after a user logged out on 3 different
> workstations but I did not unmount their home directory. Each of the 3 had
> the same 4 processes running, systemd,(sd-pam), ibus-daemon, and
> ibus-dconf. All I did was kill off those 4 processes and after the usual
> time, the automounter unmounted their home directory. So I am about as sure
> as I can be that this is not an automounter or nfs problem. It's systemd
> not killing off those processes when a user logs out.
>
> Three days -- so far so good.
>
> On 04/22/2016 11:27 AM, Scott Plante wrote:
>
> This isn't a solution to the underlying problem, but you might want to
> consider the "soft" option for the NFS mount. By default, NFS is designed
> to act like a physical disk in the sense that once the user initiates a
> write, it will block at that spot until the write completes. This is great
> if you have a NAS unit in the next rack slot from your database server.
> However, if you don't need quite that level of write assurance, the "soft"
> option acts more like a typical remote network share. If a problem occurs,
> the writer will just get an I/O error and be forced to deal with it. You
> won't get the kind of system hanging you experience with hard mounts. If
> you're just saving documents and doing that kind of basic file I/O this is
> perfect. You're mounting home directories, so you're somewhere in between,
> but depending on what your users are actually doing, soft mounts may be for
> you. Again, this doesn't explain the whole re-mounting read-only behavior
> but it may still be helpful for you to look into.
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing listAle at ale.orghttp://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists athttp://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20160423/124a18b7/attachment.html>