On 2021-07-15 at 07:00, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 12:55:11PM +0300, Reco wrote: > >> "nofail" is really needed for removable devices, because whoever >> designed systemd made an "interesting" decision to halt the boot >> process (i.e. host is inaccessible by network, console access only) >> even if a single filesystem mentioned in fstab fails to mount. > > This was the traditional behavior before systemd, so one can't > really fault systemd for continuing the practice. > > It's assumed that all file systems mentioned in /etc/fstab are > essential to the correct operation of the system (unless otherwise > specified). If one of them doesn't mount, it means a disk is broken > to the point where human intervention is required, so the operating > system decides to play it safe and not continue. Given the number of complaints I remember reading about cases where a computer which had been working fine before failed to boot under systemd, because there was a fstab entry which didn't have "nofail" set where systemd needed it to be, I find the assertion that this was the traditional behavior before systemd to be implausible. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature