Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 04:41:08 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 218448] sysutils/boxbackup: periodic script needs anticongestion sleep Message-ID: <bug-218448-13-yaVHrb39T6@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-218448-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-218448-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D218448 Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|maintainer-feedback?(portma |maintainer-feedback+ |ster@bsdforge.com) | --- Comment #1 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- While I see you've put some time, and thought into this, and I want to take nothing away from that. I can't help but wonder why the onus should be on FreeBSD. IOW this has always seemed like an administrators task to me. Don't you think? I mean, I've got clients with hundreds of servers, and I've always staggered them, time wise. For the periodic(8), and related tasks. Doesn't everyone, in this situation? In fact, Sendmail has employed a feature that could easily apply to this type of situation already -- retry after X-timeframe, and do so X-many times. To me, this approach seems just plain wrong. If this shows up in -CURRENT, I'm pulling it out. It's my server, and it should work on my schedule. Don't you think? In the end. If this is the way FreeBSD insists on doing it. I'm not going to fight it. So I guess you can consider this a reluctant approval. ;-) Sincerely, disappointed :-( --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-218448-13-yaVHrb39T6>