[Olaf van der Spek] > But you do agree the sync could introduce a delay?
Its purpose is to make sure most state saving IO is done before killing daemons that do not need to save state, so sure, it _could_ introduce a delay. I do not believe it introduces a significant delay in the shutdown itself, but am interested in numbers showing otherwise. The delay would either be in sendsigs, or when the file systems themselves are umounted, if there is a large amount of buffers to flush. > In that case you could increase the 10 seconds to 15 and do the sync > at 5 seconds. That way, those daemons do still get 10 seconds after > sync to cleanly terminate, but you do get the advantage of disk IO > and terminating daemons in parallel. Well, the point of the sync is to make it more predictable how much resources are available during the 10 seconds sendsigs give the daemons to terminate. Adding a sync and increasing the period would make it less predictable, not more predictable. Thus, I believe it is a bad idea. If you can demonstrate that the sync changes the shutdown time significantly, I am willing to discuss a change, but as the kernel buffers need to be flushed some time during shutdown, and the daemons killed by sendsigs in the normal case should die quickly (on my test machine, within the first second), I doubt the difference is huge. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
