Hello!
On Thu 27 Oct 2005 00:57 +0200, Brian May wrote:
> (I have seen a system that appears to run ntpdate on startup before
> the network is configured - but it hasn't bothered me enough to
> investigate why yet.)
If you're using ifplugd, this is a known (and wontfix) issue:
http://bugs.deb
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:39:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> How does this help boot faster? Doesn't it just increase disk
> contention?
In theory, parallel I/O requests give a chance to the kernel's I/O
scheduler to optimize them (by serving them in the order they are laid
out on disk
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:57:48 +1000
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (I have seen a system that appears to run ntpdate on startup before
> the network is configured - but it hasn't bothered me enough to
> investigate why yet.)
I had one which needed working pcmcia for the network. Pcmcia i
* Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > "Stephen" == Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Stephen> Not to mention that quite a few things do things like DNS
> Stephen> lookups which could take quite a while for an unconnected
> Stephen> system (perhaps because something
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 23:32, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, David Goodenough wrote:
> > Does this make sense?
>
> Yes, it does. Such functionality is part of a proper dependency-based
> initscript system, actually. Which doesn't actually have much to do with
> pa
> "Stephen" == Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Not to mention that quite a few things do things like DNS
Stephen> lookups which could take quite a while for an unconnected
Stephen> system (perhaps because something broke, or who knows
Stephen> what else, I've
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, David Goodenough wrote:
> Does this make sense?
Yes, it does. Such functionality is part of a proper dependency-based
initscript system, actually. Which doesn't actually have much to do with
parallel execution (hint: you can do parallel execution with just the
regular orderi
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In various discussions recently it has been suggested that it would be
>> a good idea (TM) to make the init.d scripts run in parallel. This involves
>> using some tags from the new LSB and generally
* Lars Wirzenius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> ke, 2005-10-26 kello 12:39 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG kirjoitti:
> > David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > In various discussions recently it has been suggested that it would be
> > > a good idea (TM) to make the init.d scripts run in
ke, 2005-10-26 kello 12:39 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG kirjoitti:
> David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In various discussions recently it has been suggested that it would be
> > a good idea (TM) to make the init.d scripts run in parallel. This involves
> > using some tags from the
David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In various discussions recently it has been suggested that it would be
> a good idea (TM) to make the init.d scripts run in parallel. This involves
> using some tags from the new LSB and generally making explicit some
> run-time dependencies that hav
11 matches
Mail list logo
