On Fri, March 7, 2008 9:57 am, Steven W. Orr said: > > Still sounds like a job for "at", no? >
If a job is scheduled with cron, and something unexpected causes it to miss running or the script to crash before it completes, then it still gets run at the next scheduled time. If the script uses "at" to dynamically schedule its next run, then the same types of problem mean the script no longer gets scheduled until someone notices that it isn't being run. In my opinion, "at" is fine for scheduling one-off tasks, but regularly scheduled tasks really need something like cron. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
