| 1 |
On 7/8/07, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 08 July 2007, Ryan Reich wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I have to disagree in this particular case. The anacron homepage, |
| 4 |
> > anacron.sourceforge.net, gives this exact situation as its primary |
| 5 |
> > example of what anacron is intended for. Sure, it's not good for |
| 6 |
> > handling more complex scheduling, but it seems to do what run-crons |
| 7 |
> > tries to do: run jobs that should have been executed while the |
| 8 |
> > computer was off, as soon as it comes back on. Am I missing something |
| 9 |
> > subtle? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> run-crons transparently gives all crons this behavior with very little |
| 12 |
> overhead rather than making every user set up a dual system: a standard cron |
| 13 |
> and anacron. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> run-crons is a default helper for crons that just works. if you want to not |
| 16 |
> use it but opt for anacron instead, nothing is stopping you from doing |
| 17 |
> exactly that. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What is the additional overhead of using cron+anacron as compared to |
| 20 |
using cron+run-crons? The README in anacron's tarball indicates that |
| 21 |
the net difference is one bootscript. Otherwise, you (by which I mean |
| 22 |
"the developers" as opposed to "the person using anacron") just take |
| 23 |
most of the existing /etc/crontab and put it (or its anacron |
| 24 |
equivalent) in /etc/anacrontab, and with the rest you have cron run |
| 25 |
anacron once a night. The user wouldn't have to do any more setup |
| 26 |
than currently; it would just work. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ryan Reich |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives