From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 6 20:23:00 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF33106566C; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:23:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from duck.symmetricom.us (duck.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211118FC0C; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org (daffy.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.218]) by duck.symmetricom.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q86KMxK7005597; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:22:59 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q86KMu7D044120; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:22:56 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) From: Ian Lepore To: obrien@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20120906200325.GA17159@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <201208222337.q7MNbORo017642@svn.freebsd.org> <5043E449.8050005@FreeBSD.org> <20120904220126.GA85339@dragon.NUXI.org> <50468326.8070009@FreeBSD.org> <20120906164514.GA14757@dragon.NUXI.org> <867gs7qcsl.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20120906184400.GF13179@dragon.NUXI.org> <86lignot6a.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20120906200325.GA17159@dragon.NUXI.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:22:56 -0600 Message-ID: <1346962976.59094.187.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Arthur Mesh , Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= , Mark Murray , Doug Barton , freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r239598 - head/etc/rc.d X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:23:01 -0000 On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 13:03 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > Does 'ps' vary that much across the two invocations that we had in > 'initrandom'? Please post a diff to back up any "yes" answer. > > We already have an invocation of 'ps'. Please suggest a *different* > command invocation. When I was playing with this stuff to come up with those command sequences I suggested, one thing I noticed was that the ps (with those extra parms for sorting and detailed stats) did differ if used as the first and last commands in the overall sequence. Especially they differed by being sorted into a slightly different order in the second invocation. I eventually came to the conclusion that the first one was still superfluous, and the way I should leverage that difference was to put any commands that report on ever-changing kernel statistics nearer to the end of the list, so that the commands that run first get a chance to perturb those stats as much as possible. -- Ian