On Sunday 08 July 2007, Ryan Reich wrote: > On 7/7/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 07 July 2007, Peter Gordon wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 04:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > you missed a critical aspect: offline time. the way run-crons is > > > > implemented, if you happen to routinely shut your machine off at the > > > > time that the cronjob is supposed to fire, then the standard you > > > > proposed will pretty much never fire. the run-crons implementation > > > > however has a pretty good guarantee that the periodic crons will get > > > > fired at the next uptime opportunity. > > > > > > Isn't this perfectly what anacron is intended for? > > > > yes and no ... anacron is designed with this issue in mind, but as the > > homepage of anacron explains, it does not replace the normal cron > > functionality and as such cannot be used on its own > > I have to disagree in this particular case. The anacron homepage, > anacron.sourceforge.net, gives this exact situation as its primary > example of what anacron is intended for. Sure, it's not good for > handling more complex scheduling, but it seems to do what run-crons > tries to do: run jobs that should have been executed while the > computer was off, as soon as it comes back on. Am I missing something > subtle?
run-crons transparently gives all crons this behavior with very little overhead rather than making every user set up a dual system: a standard cron and anacron. run-crons is a default helper for crons that just works. if you want to not use it but opt for anacron instead, nothing is stopping you from doing exactly that. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
