From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 21 20:23:24 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DF5106566B for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:23:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093088FC1E for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:23:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KL1uh-0005zj-9s for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:23:19 +0000 Received: from 77.237.115.237 ([77.237.115.237]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:23:19 +0000 Received: from ivoras by 77.237.115.237 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:23:19 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:22:59 +0200 Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <487E533F.7050303@FreeBSD.org> <20080716201819.GB19044@dan.emsphone.com> <487E5DCD.3010206@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.237.115.237 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) In-Reply-To: <487E5DCD.3010206@FreeBSD.org> Sender: news Subject: Re: Heads Up: shutdown keyword added to 34 rc.d scripts. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:23:24 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > The ability to do things sequentially is a key benefit of the rc.d > system. The fact that we have not been taking full advantage of that to > date is (once again IMO) an oversight. I hope you mean "sequentially, if needed" - serializing the entire shutdown sequence would be very bad for performance (-> user experience). Offtopic, but related to this and the thread about paralelizing startup scripts: I don't know what Ubuntu is using nowadays, but that thing (the x64 "server" version to be precise) boots and shutdowns incredibly fast. Linux used to be much slower than FreeBSD at startup, to the point of ridicule, but at least the Ubuntu variety is now flaming fast. The improvements are not only in the userland but also at in-kernel hardware detection. I think both the hardware detection and the userland startup each go in parallel (at their appropriate stages, obviously).