On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:36:36PM +0200, Florian Forster wrote: > I see your point, I'm in the same situation myself. However, I feel > somehow uncomfortable about making this ``fast exit'' feature the > default behavior. Can't tell you precisely why, it just doesn't feel > ``right'' ;) > > In any case, the user should have a choice. Using a different signal for > this is a good idea, though I'd use SIGUSR1 or SIGUSR2 for this. SIGTERM > and SIGINT aren't really different enough for this to make much sense > (imho).
I understand what you guys ar saying.. I'm fine with preserving the same default behavior. I like the idea of using a signal for this, since it's easy to invoke when you only know the PID (i.e. at system shutdown).. So I'll use SIGUSR1 for that. > Another, possibly additional, idea would be to add `SHUTDOWN' and > `BUGGEROFF'[*] commands. I think a signal is easier for this. On the same note, I was thinking of a command "FLUSHALL" which triggers an immediate flush to disk similar to what happens during shutdown. What do you think? (per earlier discussions on read/read+write control channels, I think this would be appropriate for the read+write channels only). -- kevin brintnall =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
