flushing dns cache

[wayne at tiscali]

yes, topic veer in progress:
=======================
xp is good, they will have a hard time converting businesses to win7 & 
it's server flavour, but they have a good shot at it. beats vista hands 
down. XP has the advantage in that it works and does what businesses 
want. mostly.

been reluctant to try linux flavours. i started my UK career in at&t/sco 
unix and zenix back in the late 80's, and had some exposure to 
x-windows, but microsoft cornered the market so i got out of the habit. 
last place i worked was a hosting centre where most of the servers were 
microsoft and a few linux, but the supervisory security and access was 
handled thru sun unix systems. i had full admin security rights over the 
active directory domains, but only limited admin in the sun domains, the 
sysops guarded rights there and to get them improved so we could set up 
servers and backups and run the supervisory systems at night shift when 
they were not around was like pulling teeth. anyhow. i may investigate 
centos, especially if it does x64, i'm experimenting on a dual core pc...

edited: i see they do an x86_x64 version in 5.4, will d/l their live cd 
& have a look...

we now return you to your regularly scheduled program:
===============
end of topic veer zone



*/Best Regards,/*
Wayne Kroncke

On 26/10/2009 17:34, Sam Trenholme wrote:
>> the older OS 'flush' command meant to write the hard disk buffers to disk so you
>> would not lose any info when you shut down. windows doesn't need that one anymore :)
>>      
> Not to make this an OS advocacy discussion, but I like Windows XP and
> CentOS 5 and don't like Ubuntu (too unstable).  Too bad my touchpad is
> not compatible with CentOS 5 and my Wireless card has problems in
> CentOS 5.
>
>    
>> anyhow, i noted that when i deleted the cache file after stopping the
>> service, the file was not re-created until it stopped the next time, i
>> gather that is when it writes the cache to disk from it's memory, reading it
>> in again at the next start. indeed the file was not created on the initial
>> install and start-up, but appeared subsequently.
>>      
> Exactly.  Deadwood reads the cache file at startup and writes the
> cache file at shutdown (or with the USR1 signal in CentOS 5).  Keeps
> things simple that way.
>