![]() |
Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
I'm not disagreeing with you on that. When I worked at Fortune, standard procedure was to type: sync sync sync halt Even though the OS guys knew that typing 'sync', waiting about 5 seconds, then typing 'halt' was really all that was necessary, most of the programmers writing application level code didn't know that. But it seemed to me that your suggestion: "You could experiment to see if issuing it occasionally in your script helps. Or issue it outside the script, even in a chron might help," was based on amental model that the OS is somehow tracking how many times sync() has been called within some timespan, and behaving differently if it's called twice rather than once. Mark On 6/16/2012 1:23 PM, Jack Coats wrote: > It may have been folk-lore, but the 'standard procedure' where I > worked, before shutting down a server on purpose, was, from root, > issue 3 commands separately when we wanted an orderly shutdown, but it > was 'urgent'. > > sync > sync > halt > > I am sure there is some basis in history that had a basis in fact at > the time. Even if the 'fact' was based on 'observation' rather than > reality. > >
![]() |
|
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |