On Sunday 28 July 2002 06:04, Danny Tholen wrote:
>
>I thought all of this was done by cron only. Why not just choose either
>cron or anacron?
>
>Danny
>
anacron works by relative time, ie, the amount of system uptime that
has passed since the last time it did something, that way if some task
is scheduled to happen every 24 hours, but the machine only runs 16 hours
a day, anacron will run the job when 24 hours of uptime have accummulated
since the last time it ran the job.
cron works by absolute time. If a job is scheduled for 0400 every Sunday,
but the machine is never turned on at 0400 on Sunday, the job will never
be run because cron doesn't worry about jobs that got missed when the
system was down, it thinks only what it needs to do next.
So... For many desktop machines, anacron is a better choice, while for
servers and other always-on systems, cron does just fine (of course
anacron would work just as well, IMHO, on such systems...)
At least, this is the way I understand the situation to be at this time.
-Chuck
--
+-% He's a real UNIX Man $-+-------------------------------------+
\ Sitting in his UNIX LAN \ Charles A. Shirley \
\ Making all his UNIX plans \ cashirley (at) comcast (dot) net \
+------# For nobody @------+-------------------------------------+
