From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue May 13 00:35:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA06829 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 1997 00:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from csd.cs.technion.ac.il (csd.cs.technion.ac.il [132.68.32.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA06817 for ; Tue, 13 May 1997 00:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (nadav@localhost) by csd.cs.technion.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA21462; Tue, 13 May 1997 10:34:41 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: csd.cs.technion.ac.il: nadav owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 10:34:41 +0300 (IDT) From: Nadav Eiron X-Sender: nadav@csd To: Mr M P Searle cc: chuckr@mat.net, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: shutdown In-Reply-To: <985.199705121054@halicore.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 May 1997, Mr M P Searle wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 12 May 1997, Chuck Robey wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Well, if it's on its own filesystem and doesn't touch anything else, no > problem whatever. If it does touch something else, I'd have to move it to > the separate filesystem (assuming it's just a few things.) > > Time savings?! It takes <1 second to kill everything, plus the 5 second wait > and maybe a second to flush buffers. This is just for a splash screen type > thing. > > > There's one other (potential) problem with this: /tmp. X keeps files open > > on /tmp, and if tmp is MFS and can't be umounted strange things sometimes > > happen. I remember reading on this list (or was it -questions) that 2.1.5 > > will not (sometimes) flush its buffers with a MFS /tmp mounted. I've never > > seen it on newer systems, but it wasn't consistent on 2.1.5R either, so > > you can never know. > > > > Well, my /tmp is MFS, and right now I'm still on 2.1.0 (soon to be 3.0). Can > X be told to put its temp files somewhere else (like /var/tmp)? Actually, > I've seen it fail to flush all buffers before. I assumed it was some ancient > bug that would be fixed when I upgraded. > > I only saw that on 2.1.5 (neither 2.1.0 nor 2.1.6 and later), but most of the machines I use stay up and running for months, so I don't get to watch that many shutdowns. Nadav