Runlevel concept - HP UX

This is a discussion on Runlevel concept - HP UX ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Runlevel concept

  1. Runlevel concept

    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

  2. Re: Runlevel concept

    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


  3. Re: Runlevel concept


    "Karl Mauer" 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.



  4. Re: Runlevel concept

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

    JohnP

    "Karl Mauer" 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




  5. Re: Runlevel concept

    "Eigenvector" wrote in message
    news:RuLpe.3990$tu4.3946@news.uswest.net...
    > "Karl Mauer" wrote in message
    > news:d86m89$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.



  6. Re: Runlevel concept

    Kilgaard wrote:
    > "Eigenvector" wrote in message
    >> "Karl Mauer" 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
    #include
    #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV.

  7. Re: Runlevel concept

    Kilgaard 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?

  8. Re: Runlevel concept

    Frank Slootweg wrote:

    > Kilgaard 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

+ Reply to Thread