| 1 |
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:56 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote: |
| 2 |
> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Emergency shutdowns aren't about |
| 5 |
> > eliminating any problems in the case of a serious system hang, they are |
| 6 |
> > about minimising such damage. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Absolutely correct! But Liviu asked, if there's a potential risk |
| 9 |
> to the system. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> My answer is: Yes, there is! It is pretty low (for the reasons |
| 12 |
> you mentioned), but it is not 0. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The risk is not 0, but the risk is not greater than "doing nothing", in |
| 15 |
fact the risk of an emergency shutdown is less than "doing nothing", |
| 16 |
given the fact that this is an emergency, and if you do nothing, you |
| 17 |
will probably have greater problems (file system corruption, etc). |
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I read the newspaper avidly. It is my one form of continuous fiction. |
| 22 |
-- Aneurin Bevan |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives