Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!vncnews!HSNX!hub.org!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!europa.clark.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.lobo.net!sloth.swcp.com!not-for-mail
From: crs@quail.swcp.com (Charlie Sorsby)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Powering Down
Date: 16 Jul 1997 10:04:51 -0600
Organization: Just me, Los Alamos, NM
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <5qirf3$1a3@quail.swcp.com>
References: <33c49208.1255785@news.dixonssurgical.co.uk> <5q4v6j$e0m$2@polaris.eurocontrol.fr> <5q6op4$dam@baygull.rtd.com> <5qgnlh$fvu$1@polaris.eurocontrol.fr>
Reply-To: crs@swcp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: lappp02.swcp.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:44561
In article <5qgnlh$fvu$1@polaris.eurocontrol.fr>,
Ollivier Robert <roberto@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
= In article <5q6op4$dam@baygull.rtd.com>, Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> wrote:
= > Hmm... I always thought *two* :
= > one "schedules" the sync
= > the second ensures the first has completed before *it* "completes"...
=
= This is a logical thought. Use of three "sync" is historical; not logical :-)
I'd always been told two syncs--decided that if two is safe, three
is safer... So I formed the habit of using three. :) Me? Paranoid?
--
Best regards,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby Los Alamos, NM "I'm the NRA!"
crs@swcp.com www.swcp.com/~crs Life Member since 1965