home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.admin
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!pwcs!derekt
- From: derekt@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Derek Terveer)
- Subject: Re: print filter (/etc/printcap : if=) too persistent
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.180848.26090@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
- Organization: City of St. Paul Public Works
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
- References: <PSHANNON.93Jan19131750@iapetus.cv.nrao.edu>
- Distribution: comp
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:08:48 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- Paul Shannon (pshannon@iapetus.cv.nrao.edu) wrote:
- : It looks to us as if lpr builds a tightly connected set of processes
- : which includes lwf, and that this set is slow to disassemble. If
- : a new request is made to lpr quickly enough, it seems to figure that
- : it's reasonable to send the new file down the same path as it sent
- : the last one.
- : But since it's eminently reasonable to use 1 printer for both ordinary
- : text and postscript, and since it's entirely plausible that a number
- : of print jobs could arrive at the host computer at almost the same
- : time, the behavior of lpr seems pretty dumb to me.
- : pshannon@nrao.edu
-
- I ran into the same problem before, and i agree that lpd seems to be
- out-clevering itself in attempting to optimize its input queue if there
- are jobs waiting at the completion of any particular job. I never
- really found a solution that was elegant. I replaced the filter with a
- hand written hack job that looked for various characters, etc. to start
- a new job, but it never really worked 100% of the time. sigh.
-
- derek
- --
- Derek Terveer Work: derek.terveer@stpaul.gov +1 612 292 6009
- Play: det@hawkmoon.mn.org +1 612 683 0413
- "Big business and big government distract us with entertainment;
- they manufacture our consent while we destroy the environment."
-