Re: networking.service: start operation timed out [SOLVED]
On 8/31/22 11:03 AM, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
> On 31/8/22 10:45 pm, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >
> > I don't use haproxy but I see there is a package for it in the Debian
> > repos. I think what you are seeing should be reported as a bug in
> > haproxy if you are using the Debian packaged version. The haproxy
> > package should start haproxy at the appropriate time during boot,
> > and systemd provides the ability to make services such as haproxy
> > depend on certain systemd targets being reached before it tries to
> > start, such as the network-online target which I think would be
> > enough for haproxy to start. But in any case, you might report a bug
> > in haproxy and see if the package maintainers can help you out if
> > you are using the Debian packaged version.
> >
> haproxy does retry three (?) times over a period. The problem is my upstream provider can take up to 10 minutes to provide a dhcp address and ipv6 RA.
>
> The network service does start correctly, but lapses into a retry mode when it can't get the full delegation at once.
>
> haproxy requires a configured interface for it to bind to. Typically this means bind to an IP address and port. If the solicitation to the upstream router hasn't happened, there is no IP and port to bind. haproxy does have an (undocumented?) retry feature to repeatedly try to bind over a period.
>
> If any bug request is to be logged, perhaps it should be for haproxy to have configurable binding options including number of retries or time elapsed?
>
> Jeremy
>
It sounds like it should be either a request for better documentation on
configuring retries over a long time period from the haproxy documentation
or a bug with wishlist severity if haproxy currently cannot handle such a long
time to wait for the address to be configured by the upstream router.
It also seems to be a ridiculously long time (ten minutes) for your provider
to configure your interface. I would look for a different provider if they
can't or won't fix it.
Chuck
Reply to: