systemd - standard place to run stuff after the network is up?

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Thu Oct 20 17:36:12 UTC 2011

On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 07:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:10:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > In general doing something like this is a bit backwards since networks
> > come and go and come and go in todays world, and we also don't want to
> This seems like a very desktop-focused view of things. I appreciate that
> that's important, but please keep the server room in mind as well. In our
> environment, the network is like electricity -- if it's down, nothing is
> running. Having the software designed to be robust against unexpected
> network glitches is very useful, but if design decisions are constantly made
> with the assumption that networks are a random transient resource, we'll end
> up conceding our place in the data center in exchange for an incredibly tiny
> slice of the desktop pie.

>From what I've seen, Lennart has always said that things should simply
be designed to behave robustly in the absence of the network; I don't
think any of his recommendations have ever required a _compromise_ in
performance in the case where the network is present. They're often
slightly new and different ways of doing things which come with an
initial mental 'cost' in terms of grokking the idea and re-writing code
to account for it, but I haven't seen him yet suggest a design where the
final result would be code that behaved less well in a case where the
network is almost always present.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list