Hi,
I had a problem the other day where I needed to shutdown, like in a real
hurry. My power supply was packed up and checking out without paying
the bill. I was in KDE and just selected logout then shutdown from the
menu. Is there a faster way to shutdown so that at least the file
system
2008/3/28, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I had a problem the other day where I needed to shutdown, like in a real
> hurry. My power supply was packed up and checking out without paying
> the bill. I was in KDE and just selected logout then shutdown from the
> menu. Is there a faster way to
Am Freitag, 28. März 2008 schrieb ext Dale:
> Is there a faster way to shutdown so that at least the file
> system is clean?
Read /usr/src/linux/Documentation/sysrq.txt.
HTH...
Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068
Am Freitag, 28. März 2008 schrieb ext Daniel Pielmeier:
> You can try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key
Wow, good to know that Wikipedia has it, just in case I don't have kernel
sources installed on my Gentoo systems ;-)
Bye...
Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Te
2008/3/28, Dirk Heinrichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am Freitag, 28. März 2008 schrieb ext Daniel Pielmeier:
>
> > You can try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key
>
> Wow, good to know that Wikipedia has it, just in case I don't have kernel
> sources installed on my Gentoo systems ;-
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
2008/3/28, Dirk Heinrichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Am Freitag, 28. März 2008 schrieb ext Daniel Pielmeier:
You can try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key
Wow, good to know that Wikipedia has it, just in case I don't have kernel
sources in
Am Freitag, 28. März 2008 schrieb ext Dale:
> I have never done this before so what if any
> are the gotcha's with this?
None.
> Anybody ever do it and can tell me how long
> a shutdown takes?
As long as you need to strike the keys.
> Also, will this work if
> I am logged into KDE and in the
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:51:20 +0100, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> By the way the safest and recommended command, although a bit longish
> should be ALT+SysRq(or print)+S(ync)+U(mount)+B(Reboot).
Alt-SysRq E I S U B is better as it kills running processes first. If you
have time, pause between the key
Hello
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:11:53AM +0100, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Anybody ever do it and can tell me how long
> > a shutdown takes?
>
> As long as you need to strike the keys.
Not really true. I have set my dirty cache timeout to 10 minutes, so it
can hold some few hundred megabytes of
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:51:20 +0100, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
By the way the safest and recommended command, although a bit longish
should be ALT+SysRq(or print)+S(ync)+U(mount)+B(Reboot).
Alt-SysRq E I S U B is better as it kills running processes first. If you
hav
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > By the way the safest and recommended command, although a bit longish
> > should be ALT+SysRq(or print)+S(ync)+U(mount)+B(Reboot).
> >
>
> Since I wanted to shutdown instead of reboot, it would be ALT + SysRq + S +
> U + O then
Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 schrieb ext Michael Schmarck:
> Dirk Heinrichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 schrieb ext Michael Schmarck:
> >> You're not shutting down the system in a clean way.
> >
> > You're not? I thought that's the purpose of the whole thing?
>
> It's mo
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Dirk Heinrichs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But nobody proposed _not_ to run ALT + SysRq + U, Neil even proposed ALT +
> SysRq + EISUB, to be sure everything is killed, sync'd and unmounted.
>
There is actually a Wikipedia page that recommended remembering the
w
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:28:29 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> But nobody proposed _not_ to run ALT + SysRq + U, Neil even proposed
> ALT + SysRq + EISUB, to be sure everything is killed, sync'd and
> unmounted.
Just don't try to do E or I over an SSH connection. It kills the SSH
daemon and you can't
Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> By the way the safest and recommended command, although a bit longish
>>> should be ALT+SysRq(or print)+S(ync)+U(mount)+B(Reboot).
>>>
>> Since I wanted to shutdown instead of reboot, it would be ALT + S
On Mittwoch, 2. April 2008, Steven Lembark wrote:
> Liviu Andronic wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> By the way the safest and recommended command, although a bit longish
> >>> should be ALT+SysRq(or print)+S(ync)+U(mount)+B(Reboot).
> >>
> >>
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Mittwoch, 2. April 2008, Steven Lembark wrote:
Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> By the way the safest and recommended command, although a bit longish
>>> should be ALT+SysRq(or print)+S(ync)+U(mount
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
> > On Mittwoch, 2. April 2008, Steven Lembark wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Liviu Andronic wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > >>> By the way the safest
On Mittwoch, 2. April 2008, Dale wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 2. April 2008, Steven Lembark wrote:
> >> Liviu Andronic wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >>> By the way the safest and recommended command, although a bit
>
quoth the Neil Bothwick:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:28:29 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > But nobody proposed _not_ to run ALT + SysRq + U, Neil even proposed
> > ALT + SysRq + EISUB, to be sure everything is killed, sync'd and
> > unmounted.
>
> Just don't try to do E or I over an SSH connection. It
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:57:21 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Yesterday our MythTV backend server crashed 4 times. It
> hung completely killing X, etc. and I was in need of a good way to
> bring the machine down.
You have X and a keyboard on your MythTV backend? There's no way I could
shut mine down qu
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:19:36 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Folks, keep in mind why I asked this question in the first place. My
> power supply was frying and I needed a VERY fast shutdown.
I'd shutdown and stay shutdown until I could replace the PSU. PSUs are
cheap, the components a dying one can take w
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:19:36 -0500, Dale wrote:
Folks, keep in mind why I asked this question in the first place. My
power supply was frying and I needed a VERY fast shutdown.
I'd shutdown and stay shutdown until I could replace the PSU. PSUs are
cheap, the compo
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:58:22 -0600, darren kirby wrote:
> > Just don't try to do E or I over an SSH connection. It kills the SSH
> > daemon and you can't reboot the box. You can guess how I learned that
> > one :(
>
> Ha. Hopefully the machine wasn't too far away physically.
Yards, fortunately
Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:19:36 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Folks, keep in mind why I asked this question in the first place.
>>> My power supply was frying and I needed a VERY fast shutdown.
>>>
>>
>> I'd shutdown and stay shutdown until I could replace
> Basically, this is not intended to be used to shutdown a puter on a
> regular basis, unless you burn out P/S's on a daily basis. O-o
>
> Just didn't want someone to be using this on a regular basis and then
> wondering why their system has a new nickname, FUBAR. :'(
In most cases you'll find
Steven Lembark wrote:
> Basically, this is not intended to be used to shutdown a puter on a
> regular basis, unless you burn out P/S's on a daily basis. O-o
>
> Just didn't want someone to be using this on a regular basis and then
> wondering why their system has a new nickname, FUBAR. :'(
In
> Well, this one takes longer. Just the foldingathome takes about 20
> seconds or more to shutdown. It can take over 60 seconds at times.
> That service for some reason has to completely shutdown before the
> others start to shutdown. The others will shutdown in parallel like I
> have set up.
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 12:10 -0400, Steven Lembark wrote:
> In most cases you'll find that 'shutdown -h now'
> takes only a few seconds.
you must have nice hardware :)
--
Iain Buchanan
flannister, n.:
The plastic yoke that holds a six-pack of beer together.
-- "Sniglets"
Steven Lembark wrote:
> Well, this one takes longer. Just the foldingathome takes about 20
> seconds or more to shutdown. It can take over 60 seconds at times.
> That service for some reason has to completely shutdown before the
> others start to shutdown. The others will shutdown in parallel
Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 12:10 -0400, Steven Lembark wrote:
In most cases you'll find that 'shutdown -h now'
takes only a few seconds.
you must have nice hardware :)
He must have. I have a AMD 2500+ CPU with 1Gb of ram. It's not the
slowest but not the fastes
Dale wrote:
> Steven Lembark wrote:
>>
>> > Well, this one takes longer. Just the foldingathome takes about 20
>> > seconds or more to shutdown. It can take over 60 seconds at times.
>> > That service for some reason has to completely shutdown before the
>> > others start to shutdown. The others
>>> In most cases you'll find that 'shutdown -h now'
>>> takes only a few seconds.
>>>
>>
>> you must have nice hardware :)
>>
>
> He must have. I have a AMD 2500+ CPU with 1Gb of ram. It's not the
> slowest but not the fastest either.
Pair of dual-PIII VA Linux machines, one compute
server wit
Steven Lembark wrote:
I have four FAH jobs running on my compute server. I
can "kill -TERM fah6" in about 0.70 sec here, they
start up again and just keep going. FAH is pretty
robust when it comes to restarts; again if you crash
the proc's then it won't be any worse than the outcome
of loosing p
> I learned a lot with this ordeal. One thing is that the P/S's
> protection circuit must have worked very well. My mobo is doing just
> fine so no damage outside of the P/S itself. I also learned that the
> halt -f -p command should be really fast if this happens again.
>
> Keep those thoughts
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:06:04 -0400
Steven Lembark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Main thing
> that speeds up the AMD box is using 320MB scsi's
> for near-term storage. They are hugely faster than
> [S]ATA or IDE used on most equipment these days.
what R/W speeds can you expect?
--
gentoo-user@list
>> Main thing
>> that speeds up the AMD box is using 320MB scsi's
>> for near-term storage. They are hugely faster than
>> [S]ATA or IDE used on most equipment these days.
>
> what R/W speeds can you expect?
Operations on SCSI run 2-3 times faster for large-ish
file transfers (say 1MB or more). F
37 matches
Mail list logo
