From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Aug 18 16:39:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from buffnet4.buffnet.net (buffnet4.buffnet.net [205.246.19.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF37F1501F for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:39:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from shovey@buffnet.net) Received: from buffnet11.buffnet.net (buffnet11.buffnet.net [205.246.19.55]) by buffnet4.buffnet.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA00782; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:39:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from shovey@buffnet.net) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:39:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Hovey To: Shawn Ramsey Cc: Evren Yurtesen , Kent Stewart , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "shutdown -h now" risk? In-Reply-To: <37BB2E9B.F3E4C705@megadeth.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I always do: sync;sync;shutdown -r now the sync;sync part is a habit from the old NCR days when lookin at it sideway was dangerous :) On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Shawn Ramsey wrote: > > I did not know that "shutdown -h now" is dangerous, > > what is the problem with it? > > He said anything OTHER than "shutdown -h now" is dangerous. I've always > used just "reboot", and I've never lost data. This does the equivalent > of a showdown -r now", at least I thought it did, and I would not call > it dangerous either. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message