dougb at FreeBSD.org
Thu Nov 17 07:55:01 UTC 2011
On 11/16/2011 09:54, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/11/2011 19:38 Jilles Tjoelker said the following:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:35:51PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> I am new to all the rc stuff, so please pardon me if I am asking
>>> something obvious or silly. What are the main reasons to _not_ have
>>> the "shutdown" keyword in an rc script? What are the examples /
>> Traditionally only very few scripts had "shutdown", leaving most of the
>> cleanup to the SIGTERM and SIGKILL from init.
>> Because it was fairly complicated to get this right (for example, a
>> database server needs "shutdown" but also all programs that use it), a
>> few years ago it was decided to add "shutdown" everywhere. The slower
>> shutdown (a few seconds at most on machines with decent CPUs, but
>> possibly rather more on slow embedded machines) was accepted.
> So nowadays (or "if I got to do it again") it would make more sense to have
> "shutdown" as a default and add "noshutdown" for some hypothetical special cases?
Not necessarily. For example, out of 151 scripts in /etc/rc.d only 52 of
them use it (and I am pretty confident I added it to all scripts that
start persistent services which didn't already have it).
IOW, rc.d is used to do a lot of things at boot time in addition to
starting daemons. In fairness most of the 800'ish rc.d scripts in ports
do start a daemon, so your idea isn't totally off base, I'm just saying
that what the default should be isn't as clear cut as you may think.
"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
More information about the freebsd-rc