From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jul 6 22: 8:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from kestrel.prod.itd.earthlink.net (kestrel.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.155]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F49437BF0E for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cjc@earthlink.net) Received: from dialin-client.earthlink.net (pool1000.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.195.235]) by kestrel.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23346; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cjc@localhost) by dialin-client.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00820; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:02:30 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: Jonathan Smith Cc: Mikko Tyolajarvi , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /etc/rc.shutdown calls local scripts now Message-ID: <20000706220229.B682@dialin-client.earthlink.net> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: <200007062218.AAA26263@m2.dynas.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jonsmith@dragonstar.dhs.org on Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 05:39:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 05:39:08PM -0500, Jonathan Smith wrote: > > Then what's the problem? I think everyone is loosing sight what the "heads up" is really about. The problem is going to be that the files in /usr/local/etc/rc.d now must _pay attention_ to the argument sent to them. Right now, many scripts in there do a startup procedure when called. (period) This will need to be fixed. There _will_ be some pain. What would end up slowing you down as shutdown is when an old sshd.sh takes a few seconds to _start_ another sshd process. ;) > On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Mikko Tyolajarvi wrote: > > > Jonathan Smith wrote: > > > > >By implementing the 'start' and 'stop' in the local scripts, how much > > >should one _expect_ their systems bootup and slow down times to take? > > > > If the start/stop arguments are coded in a backwards compatible > > fashion, there should be no difference. For startup, I can see no > > reason why there should be any difference at all [1]. > > > > As for shutdown, ports that have been fine so far without doing > > anything at shutdown should just ignore the "stop" arg, IMHO. Only > > processes that really need a clean shutdown should do anything when > > given the "stop" argument. > > > > $.02, > > /Mikko > > > > 1) Ok, make that "hardly any difference" -- the rc scripts will be > > a few lines longer and contain an extra conditional of some sort, so > > they might be slightly slower ... :) > > -- > > Mikko Työläjärvi_______________________________________mikko@rsasecurity.com > > RSA Security > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message