On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Toby Blake wrote: > Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:34:30 +0000 (GMT) > From: Toby Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: LPRng: 2 print servers both spooling to one physical printer > > Very quick question: is there any reason why this shouldn't be done? > I seem to recall somebody saying that it's a bad idea, but my brief > tests seem to indicate it works OK. >
It is a bad idea for the same reason a printer spooler was invented in the first place: a printer cannot print two things at the same time and iterleaving two printjobs isn't particular useful. This was for a unix systems with many logged in users, each of which needs to print something. Things doesn't change very much with network printers and printing from multiple workstations; the printer can still only print one thing at a time, and for that reason having only one spooler being in charge of the printer will ensure everything runs smoothly. All other systems will then submit their print jobs to that spooler instead of directly to the printer. For a set of spooler systems to access one single printer there must be a protocol to coordinate that access. In the LPD protocol there is no such mechanism. Villy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- YOU MUST BE A LIST MEMBER IN ORDER TO POST TO THE LPRNG MAILING LIST The address you post from MUST be your subscription address If you need help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or lprng-requests or lprng-digest-requests) with the word 'help' in the body. For the impatient, to subscribe to a list with name LIST, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with: | example: subscribe LIST <mailaddr> | subscribe lprng-digest [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe LIST <mailaddr> | unsubscribe lprng [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have major problems, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word LPRNGLIST in the SUBJECT line. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
