http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=11561
--- Comment #5 from Michael Hunter <michael.hunter at sun.com> 2009-09-24 21:13:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > [...] > > > If the desired state is disabled, then disable then refresh is preferred > > > since > > > we'll avoid the costly rule generation operation. > > > > That won't happen when it is ultimately enabled again? > > > > How is 'disable ; refresh ; enable' different from 'disable ; enable'? > > The rules are dynamic and generated on each refresh or enable. Great. So the two are equivalent. > > My point was to save the time it takes to generate rules if we know the > service > is going to be disabled. If the service should be enabled, then you can simply > run svcadm refresh. Understood. There was disagreement in a technical discussion this morning with the majority thinking that 'disable ; enable' didn't update the running copy and therefore 'disable ; refresh ; enable' was different from 'disable ; enable'. That seemed counterintuitive to me. I wanted to understand the possible solutions better. We had already (fuzzily) figured out that waiting to do the refresh saved us the time we were wasting on the refresh before disable. -- Configure bugmail: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
