+-- Rohit [freebsd] [16-06-03 08:42 +0000]:
| Thanks for your help Jud, you are absolutely right. With issuing the halt
| command, there are no excessive delays in booting. Inface booting is really
| fast.
|
| Thanks
|
| Rohit
Rohit:
You mean to say that when you use 'halt' instead of
'shutdown -h', your machince boots faster?
Roger:
I don't think that 'shutdown -h' = 'halt'
Rohit is not invoking halt.
'shutdown -h -o' = 'halt'
Rohit:
Can you try 'shutdown -h -o' and let us know what's the
result?
Regards,
Shantanu
|
|
| On Saturday 14 June 2003 20:04, Jud wrote:
| > On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:28:23 +0530, Shantanu Mahajan
| >
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > | I shutdown using the shutdown -h now command
| > > | or reboot using reboot now
| > >
| > > did you try 'halt'?
| > > what msg. do you see after the shutdown is complete?
| >
| > From the halt(8) man page:
| >
| > "Normally, the shutdown(8) utility is used when the system needs to be
| > halted or restarted, giving users advance warning of their impending doom
| > and cleanly terminating specific programs."
| >
| > From the shutdown(8) man page:
| >
| > "The following options are available:
| > -h The system is halted at the specified time."
| >
| > So Rohit is in fact using 'halt' in the way it is normally invoked, as an
| > option to 'shutdown.' Is there a reason that 'halt' without 'shutdown'
| > would be preferable in this case?
| >
| > Jud
--
Nice tcsh prompt: set prompt = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:%~%# '
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
