SystemD Manager not showing all services

[LL-user]

Hi,

Inspired by paylepiramida I had a closer look at services and the SystemD Manger on a test install of LL 3.0 64-bit.

It seems to me that not all services are showing up in the SystemD Manager. I was specifically looking for the samba services...

What am I missing here?

Thanks for any input

[Valtam]

Samba services are masked. You see this via:

Code:

systemctl list-unit-files --type=service

https://www.freecinema2022.gq/forums/insta...-lite-3-0/

[LL-user]

Thanks Jerry!

Yep, that's how I did the comparison

What is the reason for masking services? Or was that decided by the developer rather than you so would have to be asked him?

[Valtam]

I don't touch Samba during the LL build process other than the smb.conf file. So I'd assume the samba service is masked by default.
Think of 'mask'  as a strong disabled. SystemD assumes that a masked service will never be needed. If it's enabled and not used, theres the potential to slow down 100's, 1000's of people computers who will never use file sharing on a lan. I consider it a saving in boot time, and should really only enabled by people who will actually use it.

[LL-user]

Sorry, Jerry. Complete misunderstanding on my end!
Because I see it exactly like you (saving boot time!) I started looking into it.

What confuses me is that Samba related services show up with 'systemd-analyze blame' and when - admittedly using the outdated command - '/etc/init.d/samba status' I get  nmbd.service and smbd.service shown as 'active (running)'!?

Due to the findings above and due to the existence of the Network Share Settings in Linux Lite I honestly assumed Samba to be active by default. Good to know it isn't

[Valtam]

I think it's fair to estimate, more people (I'm referring to Joe Public) don't use and configure local area networking, than do use it hence the mask state, a sensible default solution from Ubuntu. Feel free to set as Solved once your satisfied with the information.

[trinidad]

"I think it's fair to estimate, more people (I'm referring to Joe Public) don't use and configure local area networking, than do..."

I would qualify that, at least as far as currently Joe Public Ubuntu user worldwide. In reality Joe Public Windows user in the United States, (the biggest market share) power lan% usage of some kind is probably more like 50%. (often accomplished in horribly insecure ways) Linux has about 2% of that market share. If there is any wide open area where Linux can take advantage of the Windows privacy and security issues, this is certainly the one. The Linux distro that can put local area networking set up tools into user friendly GUI's, will be the one that impacts that market. Turning small business people into geeks is not the answer. Successful small businesses, and even home businesses here cycle out their office hardware every couple of years. It's stupid tax wise not to. Small businesses harder pressed economically hang on to their hardware longer, but even then five to seven years is usually it. Build a Linux distro with local area power networking from a GUI set up, and the market is there for the taking. It's not geek-dom that wins this market share, it's simple inexpensive (no needed tech support) convenient productivity-dom, and this is the market to go after because of MS privacy and security issues, because these are the people that express those concerns the most realistically, (what can this danger cost me?) Make a RHEL or a Suse Enterprise look and GUI function like Windows as far as power local area networking, and Linux inroads will be made more quickly. This is what I am working on, and concerned with every day, and will continue to test and create, and hope for. I would wager, and probably win, that in the United States Linux distros are more commonly dual booted with Windows than set up as stand alone OSs.

TC     

[LL-user]

I'm with both of you! In regard to LAN networking as well as market approach.

Still leaves me with the question - although it's masked - is it really inactive?

[Valtam]

I'm with both of you! In regard to LAN networking as well as market approach.

Still leaves me with the question - although it's masked - is it really inactive?

Code:

man systemctl

quote:

Code:

"masked"
Mask one or more unit files, as specified on the command line. This will link these units to /dev/null, making it impossible to start them. This is a
           stronger version of disable, since it prohibits all kinds of activation of the unit, including enablement and manual activation. Use this option with
           care. This honors the --runtime option to only mask temporarily until the next reboot of the system. The --now option can be used to ensure that the
           units are also stopped.

Does this answer your question?

[LL-user]

Sorry, Jerry, not really...

Maybe I need to re-phrase my question.

IF the Samba service is strongly disabled (= masked), WHY can I find three Samba services (nmbd.service, samba-ad-dc.service and smbd.service) showing up on the systemd-analyze blame list and three /usr/sbin/smbd processes in top?
That's in a live LL 3.0 system I just booted up.
What am I missing?  :imagine a smile scratching its head here:

If this discussion is outside the scope of this forum, I do apologize. Please let me know and I'll mark it as solved.