Hi NG,

I've heard that hpux will start all script in runlevel 1 and 2 when it
should boots to runlevel 3. Is that correct?

In linux only the scripts in runlevel 3 are started, when the default
runlevel is 3 in inittab.

Regards,
Karl

That appears to be correct. The main script is in /sbin/rc. It has a
comment:

if [ "$new" -gt "$old" ]; then
    # new run level is higher than old, so run start scripts in
    # all intermediate run levels and in new run level.

Similarly, kill scripts for intermediate levels are run when coming
back down, as far as I can see.

Cheers,
-nick

"Karl Mauer" <mwain@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:d86m89$iro$1@news.sap-ag.de...
> Hi NG,
>
> I've heard that hpux will start all script in runlevel 1 and 2 when it
> should boots to runlevel 3. Is that correct?
>
> In linux only the scripts in runlevel 3 are started, when the default
> runlevel is 3 in inittab.
>
> Regards,
> Karl

Run levels in HPUX are sequential - that is to get to run level 2 you have
to get past run level 1, to get to 3 you have to get past level 2.  The run
levels are start up sequences to put it another way.  Run level one mounts
up the filesystems, run level 2 starts all the necessary networking
components, run level 3 typically begins all the high level applications and
the multi-user interface gui's.  Shutting down is the same only in reverse.

I find the run levels in HPUX to be extremely intuitive, rather than in
Linux where the run level is pretty arbitrary really.

That's the way its been as long as I can remember (mid-'80s) in HP-UX.

JohnP

"Karl Mauer" <mwain@freenet.de> wrote in message 
news:d86m89$iro$1@news.sap-ag.de...
> Hi NG,
>
> I've heard that hpux will start all script in runlevel 1 and 2 when it
> should boots to runlevel 3. Is that correct?
>
> In linux only the scripts in runlevel 3 are started, when the default
> runlevel is 3 in inittab.
>
> Regards,
> Karl 

"Eigenvector" <m44_master@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RuLpe.3990$tu4.3946@news.uswest.net...
> "Karl Mauer" <mwain@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:d86m89$iro$1@news.sap-ag.de...
> > Hi NG,
> >
> > I've heard that hpux will start all script in runlevel 1 and 2 when it
> > should boots to runlevel 3. Is that correct?
> >
> > In linux only the scripts in runlevel 3 are started, when the default
> > runlevel is 3 in inittab.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Karl
>
> Run levels in HPUX are sequential - that is to get to run level 2 you have
> to get past run level 1, to get to 3 you have to get past level 2.  The
run
> levels are start up sequences to put it another way.  Run level one mounts
> up the filesystems, run level 2 starts all the necessary networking
> components, run level 3 typically begins all the high level applications
and
> the multi-user interface gui's.  Shutting down is the same only in
reverse.
>
> I find the run levels in HPUX to be extremely intuitive, rather than in
> Linux where the run level is pretty arbitrary really.

I didn't realize that runlevels were borken in Linux. Thanks for the info.

Kilgaard wrote:
> "Eigenvector" <m44_master@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> "Karl Mauer" <mwain@freenet.de> wrote in message

>> > In linux only the scripts in runlevel 3 are started, when the default
>> > runlevel is 3 in inittab.

>> Run levels in HPUX are sequential - that is to get to run level 2 you have
>> to get past run level 1, to get to 3 you have to get past level 2.  The
>> run
>> levels are start up sequences to put it another way. 

>> I find the run levels in HPUX to be extremely intuitive, rather than in
>> Linux where the run level is pretty arbitrary really.
 
> I didn't realize that runlevels were borken in Linux. Thanks for the info.

Duh, Linux isn't guaranteed to even _have_ runlevels. It's a function of
init and not kernel, and there are Linux distributions with all kinds of
different implementations of init.

The named instead of numbered runlevels in some are fun too. And some
are part sequential and part arbitrary.

Oh well. At least HP-UX is consistent about what it does. I won't bother
deciding which of the various schemes I'd like best, I just learn to
live with them, myself. 


-- 
Mikko Nahkola <mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com>
#include <disclaimer.h>
#Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. 

Kilgaard <Kilgaard@hotmail.com> wrote:
[deleted]
> I didn't realize that runlevels were borken in Linux. Thanks for the info.

  What do you mean "borken"? It just follows the Linux "Let's check if
there's a standard way and if so do it differently." paradigm. Are you
saying you don't like that?

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Kilgaard <Kilgaard@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [deleted]
> 
>>I didn't realize that runlevels were borken in Linux. Thanks for the info.
> 
> 
>   What do you mean "borken"? It just follows the Linux "Let's check if
> there's a standard way and if so do it differently." paradigm. Are you
> saying you don't like that?


I think on linux it is broken as in a broken sequence, just step into the 
runlevel of choice, not needed to pass all runlevels. That is how I see it on 
most distros.

Since 1978, there are 2 major flavors of unix, both doing details different. 
There is a good thing for both ways and there even can be a different way.

There is something to say about both ways of traversing trough the runlevels. If 
they are used in sequence, its usage is clear: run the scripts with their start 
option to enter a runlevel, run the scripts with their stop option to leave the 
runlevel.

With the approach I see on linux I can setup a system that has a runlevel for 
different things that are not necessarilly a superset of a previous runlevel. 
For example: Runlevel 2 for character based, no networking. Runlevel 3 for 
graphical system on, no network serices. Runlevel 4: network services but no 
graphical system. Runlevel 5: both network services and graphical services.


Regards

CBee