On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 19:26 -0600, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Devin Teske <dte...@vicor.com> wrote: > > There's no technical reason to avoid using halt directly other > than the > fact that shutdown sends a message to connected users while > halt does > not. > -- > Devin > > P.S. I welcome the rebuttle as a learning experience if the > above is not > 100% accurate and true (but be-warned... I went around the > office > polling _really_ old UNIX hands before making the above > statement). > > > I used to believe that until I was shown I was wrong. The easiest way > to see you're wrong is to drop to ttyv0 then do one of each like a > reboot then a shutdown -r now. In the latter case, you'll > notice /etc/rc.d/ and /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ stop scripts being > processed but not so in the former. In both types of shutdowns, > everything *should* exit cleanly but processes are terminated with > different signals and certain types of applications really need the > full rc stop script to end cleanly like HAST and CARP for example. > > shutdown -r/p is a really good habit to form. > > FWIW, someone also stated reboot on Linux behaves like shutdown -r now > so that I sure contributes to the confusion.
Thank you very much for the explanation! Yes, I (we) had completely forgotten about the shutdown scripts. Of course, many of us still remember the days when it standard fare to "sync; sync; halt". -- Devin > > > > -- > Adam Vande More _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"