Is there a way to make sure only one systemd@.service instance is running resp. gets started
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I would like to use one .service file for starting a service from varying directories but it would be nice if there was a way to automatically stop any running instance with a different instance name (or even the same) or at least to prevent starting a second instance.
Say I have a unit file special_service@.service that contains
WorkingDirectory=/var/special_service/%i
and then call systemctl start special_service@try_one and later I issue systemctl start special_service@try_two then this second instance should either fail to start with an appropriate message or even better stop special_service@try_one and start special_service@try_two.
systemd
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
add a comment |
I would like to use one .service file for starting a service from varying directories but it would be nice if there was a way to automatically stop any running instance with a different instance name (or even the same) or at least to prevent starting a second instance.
Say I have a unit file special_service@.service that contains
WorkingDirectory=/var/special_service/%i
and then call systemctl start special_service@try_one and later I issue systemctl start special_service@try_two then this second instance should either fail to start with an appropriate message or even better stop special_service@try_one and start special_service@try_two.
systemd
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
1
I think the basic use case for @ services is to support independent instances. If you want to get more magic, you should probably useExecStartPreor similar.
– Pavel Šimerda
Apr 26 '14 at 17:28
You probably need to adjust an environment variable with systemctl.
– CameronNemo
Jul 1 '14 at 14:16
add a comment |
I would like to use one .service file for starting a service from varying directories but it would be nice if there was a way to automatically stop any running instance with a different instance name (or even the same) or at least to prevent starting a second instance.
Say I have a unit file special_service@.service that contains
WorkingDirectory=/var/special_service/%i
and then call systemctl start special_service@try_one and later I issue systemctl start special_service@try_two then this second instance should either fail to start with an appropriate message or even better stop special_service@try_one and start special_service@try_two.
systemd
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
I would like to use one .service file for starting a service from varying directories but it would be nice if there was a way to automatically stop any running instance with a different instance name (or even the same) or at least to prevent starting a second instance.
Say I have a unit file special_service@.service that contains
WorkingDirectory=/var/special_service/%i
and then call systemctl start special_service@try_one and later I issue systemctl start special_service@try_two then this second instance should either fail to start with an appropriate message or even better stop special_service@try_one and start special_service@try_two.
systemd
systemd
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
edited Mar 8 '14 at 14:22
slm♦
250k66523683
250k66523683
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
asked Mar 8 '14 at 13:39
TNTTNT
1865
1865
1
I think the basic use case for @ services is to support independent instances. If you want to get more magic, you should probably useExecStartPreor similar.
– Pavel Šimerda
Apr 26 '14 at 17:28
You probably need to adjust an environment variable with systemctl.
– CameronNemo
Jul 1 '14 at 14:16
add a comment |
1
I think the basic use case for @ services is to support independent instances. If you want to get more magic, you should probably useExecStartPreor similar.
– Pavel Šimerda
Apr 26 '14 at 17:28
You probably need to adjust an environment variable with systemctl.
– CameronNemo
Jul 1 '14 at 14:16
1
1
I think the basic use case for @ services is to support independent instances. If you want to get more magic, you should probably use
ExecStartPre or similar.– Pavel Šimerda
Apr 26 '14 at 17:28
I think the basic use case for @ services is to support independent instances. If you want to get more magic, you should probably use
ExecStartPre or similar.– Pavel Šimerda
Apr 26 '14 at 17:28
You probably need to adjust an environment variable with systemctl.
– CameronNemo
Jul 1 '14 at 14:16
You probably need to adjust an environment variable with systemctl.
– CameronNemo
Jul 1 '14 at 14:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
systemd itself has no such possibilities. You may wrap your binary in a shell script which creates/detects a lockfile, and write an extra shell script which removes it (to run on ExecStopPost=).
Just remember to exec the real binary at the end, in order to not leave an extra bash process hanging around.
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f118727%2fis-there-a-way-to-make-sure-only-one-systemd-service-instance-is-running-resp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
systemd itself has no such possibilities. You may wrap your binary in a shell script which creates/detects a lockfile, and write an extra shell script which removes it (to run on ExecStopPost=).
Just remember to exec the real binary at the end, in order to not leave an extra bash process hanging around.
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
add a comment |
systemd itself has no such possibilities. You may wrap your binary in a shell script which creates/detects a lockfile, and write an extra shell script which removes it (to run on ExecStopPost=).
Just remember to exec the real binary at the end, in order to not leave an extra bash process hanging around.
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
add a comment |
systemd itself has no such possibilities. You may wrap your binary in a shell script which creates/detects a lockfile, and write an extra shell script which removes it (to run on ExecStopPost=).
Just remember to exec the real binary at the end, in order to not leave an extra bash process hanging around.
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
systemd itself has no such possibilities. You may wrap your binary in a shell script which creates/detects a lockfile, and write an extra shell script which removes it (to run on ExecStopPost=).
Just remember to exec the real binary at the end, in order to not leave an extra bash process hanging around.
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
answered Dec 27 '14 at 22:42
intelfxintelfx
3,0891227
3,0891227
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f118727%2fis-there-a-way-to-make-sure-only-one-systemd-service-instance-is-running-resp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I think the basic use case for @ services is to support independent instances. If you want to get more magic, you should probably use
ExecStartPreor similar.– Pavel Šimerda
Apr 26 '14 at 17:28
You probably need to adjust an environment variable with systemctl.
– CameronNemo
Jul 1 '14 at 14:16