From owner-freebsd-questions Mon May 1 11:33:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2773537BDFC for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lowell@world.std.com) Received: from world.std.com (lowell@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17413; Mon, 1 May 2000 14:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24173; Mon, 1 May 2000 14:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005011832.OAA24173@world.std.com> From: Lowell Gilbert To: jpedras@webvolution.net Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-reply-to: (message from Joao Pedras on Mon, 01 May 2000 19:04:49 +0100 (BST)) Subject: Re: rsh's -t feature References: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 19:04:49 +0100 (BST) Sender: jpedras@manecao.tafkap.priv I guess you are right... the 'man' really says data. I wanted to shutdown a couple machines with a command issued from a third which is 'directly' connected to the ups. These two machines usually are working, but if for some reason someone disconnects one of them and by coincidence the power fails ? The script stops here waiting for rsh. Any suggestions ? Sure. That case is easy, especially if they're directly connected to each other. ping a machine, and only try to rsh to it if it responds... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message