On 7/8/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 08 July 2007, Ryan Reich wrote:
> 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.
What is the additional overhead of using cron+anacron as compared to
using cron+run-crons? The README in anacron's tarball indicates that
the net difference is one bootscript. Otherwise, you (by which I mean
"the developers" as opposed to "the person using anacron") just take
most of the existing /etc/crontab and put it (or its anacron
equivalent) in /etc/anacrontab, and with the rest you have cron run
anacron once a night. The user wouldn't have to do any more setup
than currently; it would just work.
--
Ryan Reich
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
