Hi everyone again,
after the summary yesterday, I received emails from
few other individuals showing concern that 'idled'
might not the best solution after all.
However, I did not get any scenario's that it might
cause problems. So far I have tried it on our `test
machines`and so far no problem. Who knows when you set
it on real people machines, running all sort of
programs.
1. Shouldn't the use of "nohup <command> &" take care
of
background processes that may otherwise been seen as
idle and get killed?
Here are some of the corcerns I received:
************
You may find idled is not a good solution. It has not
been updated for
over four years...May 16, 1996. It is not reliable
and needs work.
Matter
of fact I would like to update the tool but time has
been a problem as
of yet.
**************
Just an FYI. We looked at idled, and it seemed
appropriate for certain
situations (when we evaluated it last year). Our
problem is that we
have
users who run large stats jobs - they may appear idle
for some time,
but
they have background processes running. Did any of
the solutions you
recieved take this situation into consideration?
cheers and thanks,
**************************************
Can anybody let us know if we are overlooking
something big by use of idled??
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Received on Tue Nov 21 2000 - 21:54:37 NZDT