Date: 9 Apr 1997 13:51:00 GMT From: peter@spinner.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new ping option Message-ID: <860593860.311485@haywire.DIALix.COM> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970408210837.303B-100000@jg.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <403.860578676@time.cdrom.com>, jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes: >> I'd like to see a new ping option which does the opposite of -a; includes >> a bell character when the packet is lost. -A seems to be the proper name >> for such an option. > > This whole direction for ping is a complete and total crock. :-( Well, heck, I _like_ it and use it a lot! :-] It's already saved me loads of time while waiting for machines to boot. > If you want to make this general, have ping(1) return a status on a > single failure or a single success, then choosing to beep, fart, > whistle, flash or provide whatever form of notification most pleases > you. There is NO reason I can see for building this behavior into > ping, and whomever added the beep (well, OK, it was Bruce Murphy - CVS > doesn't allow you to play coy very convincingly about this kind of > thing :-) should probably be shot at dawn, but I suppose we could also > spare him and simply back out that most un-UNIX-like change to > ping. :-) Well, how would the semantics work? Send a single ping, wait for a maximum of 'n' seconds and return a status? There is a program called fping (now a port) that already does this, and can do multiple machines at once. peter@spinner[9:48pm] fping -t 300 haywire spinner nuclear spinner is alive haywire is alive nuclear is unreachable peter@spinner[9:48pm] echo $? 1 peter@spinner[9:48pm] fping -t 300 haywire haywire is alive peter@spinner[9:49pm] echo $? 0 peter@spinner[9:49pm]# > Jordan Cheers, -Peter (With his "I don't care if it's bloat, I like it!" hat on :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?860593860.311485>