is there any other alternatives besides sending a ping after so many seconds ?
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > > On 20:31 08 Mar 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > | > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Steve Lee wrote: > > | > > In SecureCRT, (windows people) can send a packet every so many > > | > > hours, to keep it alive, anyone with any ideas on doing this > > | > > is Xwindows ? > > | > while /bin/true;do ping -c 1 REMOTEHOST_IP >/dev/null 2>&1;done & > > | ACTUALLY that should be: > > | while /bin/true;do ping -c 1 REMOTEHOST_IP >/dev/null 2>&1;sleep 5m;done & > > > > Wouldn't a plain > > > > ping -i 300 REMOTEHOST_IP & > > > > do just as well? Ping will happily ping forever, which is what your loop is > > intended to do. > > > The script does two things that "ping -i 300 REMOTEHOST_IP &" doesn't > do. It stops when ping fails, so that you don't keep trying to ping the > other end after you drop the connection. The second thing is that it > only pings every 5 minutes, instead of every second. That cuts down on > a lot of unecessary network trafic. > > Mikkel > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
