| 1 |
On Sunday 08 July 2007, Ryan Reich wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 7/7/07, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday 07 July 2007, Peter Gordon wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 04:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > you missed a critical aspect: offline time. the way run-crons is |
| 6 |
> > > > implemented, if you happen to routinely shut your machine off at the |
| 7 |
> > > > time that the cronjob is supposed to fire, then the standard you |
| 8 |
> > > > proposed will pretty much never fire. the run-crons implementation |
| 9 |
> > > > however has a pretty good guarantee that the periodic crons will get |
| 10 |
> > > > fired at the next uptime opportunity. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Isn't this perfectly what anacron is intended for? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > yes and no ... anacron is designed with this issue in mind, but as the |
| 15 |
> > homepage of anacron explains, it does not replace the normal cron |
| 16 |
> > functionality and as such cannot be used on its own |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I have to disagree in this particular case. The anacron homepage, |
| 19 |
> anacron.sourceforge.net, gives this exact situation as its primary |
| 20 |
> example of what anacron is intended for. Sure, it's not good for |
| 21 |
> handling more complex scheduling, but it seems to do what run-crons |
| 22 |
> tries to do: run jobs that should have been executed while the |
| 23 |
> computer was off, as soon as it comes back on. Am I missing something |
| 24 |
> subtle? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
run-crons transparently gives all crons this behavior with very little |
| 27 |
overhead rather than making every user set up a dual system: a standard cron |
| 28 |
and anacron. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
run-crons is a default helper for crons that just works. if you want to not |
| 31 |
use it but opt for anacron instead, nothing is stopping you from doing |
| 32 |
exactly that. |
| 33 |
-mike |
Archives