On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:48:41AM +1000, Phil wrote:
>> Jeremy,
>> A good proposal to improve start-up robustness. If I may suggest,
>> waitnetwork_ip should include a short list of alternate IP's in
>> the event of a local network outage
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:48:41AM +1000, Phil wrote:
> Jeremy,
> A good proposal to improve start-up robustness. If I may suggest,
> waitnetwork_ip should include a short list of alternate IP's in
> the event of a local network outage, or DOS, etc. Something like:
> waitnetwork_ip="IP1 IP2 IP3
Jeremy,
A good proposal to improve start-up robustness. If I may suggest,
waitnetwork_ip should include a short list of alternate IP's in
the event of a local network outage, or DOS, etc. Something like:
waitnetwork_ip="IP1 IP2 IP3"
Having multiple target IP's will improve the likelihood of ti
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:54:46AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:05:17AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 4/18/2010 4:24 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> > > By way of discussion, I'd just like to re-iterate what I
> > > said the first time around: it must be understood that
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:05:17AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 4/18/2010 4:24 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> > By way of discussion, I'd just like to re-iterate what I
> > said the first time around: it must be understood that this
> > sort of thing is a (necessary) hacky-workaround that should
> >
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 4/18/2010 4:24 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
>> By way of discussion, I'd just like to re-iterate what I
>> said the first time around: it must be understood that this
>> sort of thing is a (necessary) hacky-workaround that should
>> ultimately
On 4/18/2010 4:24 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> By way of discussion, I'd just like to re-iterate what I
> said the first time around: it must be understood that this
> sort of thing is a (necessary) hacky-workaround that should
> ultimately be unnecessary.
While I find the discussion about launchd-
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 02:37:27PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > I'd like to discuss the possibility of introduction of a new script into
> > /etc/rc.d base system a script, which when enabled, would provide a way
> > to wait until the IP networking layer (using ping(8)) is up and usable
> >
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 02:37:27PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>> I'd like to discuss the possibility of introduction of a new script into
>> /etc/rc.d base system a script, which when enabled, would provide a way
>> to wait until the IP ne
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 02:37:27PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> I'd like to discuss the possibility of introduction of a new script into
> /etc/rc.d base system a script, which when enabled, would provide a way
> to wait until the IP networking layer (using ping(8)) is up and usable
> before con
I'd like to discuss the possibility of introduction of a new script into
/etc/rc.d base system a script, which when enabled, would provide a way
to wait until the IP networking layer (using ping(8)) is up and usable
before continuing with daemon startup.
I've written a script that's in use on all
11 matches
Mail list logo
