On 9 Aug 2000, Chris, the Young One wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:57:20AM -0400, Todd Finney wrote:
>! I don't know which one would be faster. Speed really isn't
>! an issue in this case though, is it?
>
>I love efficiency wherever I find it (though a good friend calls me
>``the king of procrastination'', so I guess I don't practise what I
>preach). So, to me, whether it's an issue here is not an issue. :-)
Doing 50% more work to have a seldom-run and small-footprint process run
10% faster is not efficient.
>! You have to change the file anyway if
>! you're implementing the qmail.pid solution, and pidof saves
>! you the trouble of adding the (admittedly minor) pid
>! recording function.
>
>But no, we don't have to change /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail. As mentioned
>in a previous message, Ellen is using a script file that backgrounds
>/var/qmail/rc; my solution only involves changing that script.
Go back and read the messages again. Ellen didn't need to correct pid for
the startup script. She needed it for qmail-rcfile, which is different. If
you're changing the location of the pid - be it from nothing to
/var/run/qmail.pid or from nothing to /sbin/pidof qmail-send, you need
to update the qmail-rcfile to reflect this change. Using pidof removes
the need to record the pid to a file, which saves you about 44 characters.
>
>! pidof, a win by 44 characters?
>
>You know you're a geek when you start counting how many characters a
>command takes up. :-) (That's a compliment, in case you take it the
>other way.)
Thank you.
cheers,
Todd
