Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:42:31 +0000 From: Rohit <rohitvis@rogers.com> To: Jud <judmarc@fastmail.fm>, Shantanu Mahajan <freebsd@dhumketu.cjb.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Booting takes too long. Why? (/ was not properly dismounted) Message-ID: <200306160842.31179.rohitvis@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <oprqrwqijt0cf2rk@fastmail.fm> References: <200306131035.51185.rohitvis@rogers.com> <20030614065823.GA217@dhumketu.homeunix.net> <oprqrwqijt0cf2rk@fastmail.fm>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for your help Jud, you are absolutely right. With issuing the halt command, there are no excessive delays in booting. Inface booting is really fast. Thanks Rohit On Saturday 14 June 2003 20:04, Jud wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:28:23 +0530, Shantanu Mahajan > > <freebsd@dhumketu.cjb.net> wrote: > > | I shutdown using the shutdown -h now command > > | or reboot using reboot now > > > > did you try 'halt'? > > what msg. do you see after the shutdown is complete? > > From the halt(8) man page: > > "Normally, the shutdown(8) utility is used when the system needs to be > halted or restarted, giving users advance warning of their impending doom > and cleanly terminating specific programs." > > From the shutdown(8) man page: > > "The following options are available: > -h The system is halted at the specified time." > > So Rohit is in fact using 'halt' in the way it is normally invoked, as an > option to 'shutdown.' Is there a reason that 'halt' without 'shutdown' > would be preferable in this case? > > Jud > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306160842.31179.rohitvis>