Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:03:35 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /sbin/reboot Message-ID: <20101210060335.BCDCC1CC12@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:35:51 CST." <AANLkTimEvQ7amDeFE9eG%2BO9G664jXAWb9hhSt0bU%2B3DR@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 23:35:51 -0600 > From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote: > > > Why would you want it to be? One really shouldn't be running /sbin/reboot > > directly as part of normal operations. shutdown does a graceful reboot if > > and when operators need to perform reboot. > > > > AFAIK, the only functional difference between the two is shutdown(8) > notifies other logged in users of the impending shutdown. I've used > reboot(8) for a long time with no ill effects so I'd be interested to hear > what you meant there. Since an operator can use shutdown(8) to initiate the > same shutdown sequence reboot(8) uses, it wouldn't seems to be a security > based decision. Sorry, but this is not at all true, though it often seems so. Unlike reboot, shutdown attempts to cleanly stop all processes. Things like databases can be badly damaged by a reboot. Other processes save state when stopped and that is lost with a reboot. Simply stated, doing a reboot as a standard method of restarting a system is not a good idea and that is why it is not owned by the operator group. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101210060335.BCDCC1CC12>