On 2008-Jul-17 20:56:04 +0200, David Naylor <naylor.b.david_at_gmail.com> wrote: >* Add stagnation or parallel support (all scripts in a stage can be executed >concurrently without conflict) This sounds like a worthwhile improvement for most cases. Note that it probably needs some degree of rate limiting - just forking off dozens of startup scripts may be counter-productive - especially if they are I/O bound. >The main reason for this work was to increase start-up time (on the userland >side) by running as many scripts concurrently as possible. 'Reduce' maybe... >method but that would mean moving most of the controlling logic into a >binary). I don't see how to safely do all the parallelisation using scripting tools that are available in the base system >[[Side note: I stopped short of actually field testing the concurrent >changes to rc (rcorder and the simplifications to rc scripts works]] Ummm,.. Unless I've misunderstood something, you have just said that your main driver for this was implementing concurrency but you haven't actually tested that. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC