From: Pádraig Brady <P@draigBrady.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 04:44:24 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: doc: improve tail -f vs. inotify description and advice
X-Git-Tag: v8.13~158
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=64ceb14984cbeb5d73a19a2ee1cc1c718f46a4de;p=thirdparty%2Fcoreutils.git

doc: improve tail -f vs. inotify description and advice

* doc/coreutils.texi (tail invocation): Adjust, and add an example.
---

diff --git a/doc/coreutils.texi b/doc/coreutils.texi
index fa7e015f11..c091b7feaa 100644
--- a/doc/coreutils.texi
+++ b/doc/coreutils.texi
@@ -2830,10 +2830,17 @@ no @var{file} operand is specified and standard input is a FIFO or a pipe.
 Likewise, the @option{-f} option has no effect for any
 operand specified as @samp{-}, when standard input is a FIFO or a pipe.
 
-With kernel inotify support, output is asynchronous and generally very prompt.
+With kernel inotify support, output is triggered by file changes
+and is generally very prompt.
 Otherwise, @command{tail} sleeps for one second between checks---
 use @option{--sleep-interval=@var{n}} to change that default---which can
 make the output appear slightly less responsive or bursty.
+When using tail without inotify support, you can make it more responsive
+by using a sub-second sleep interval, e.g., via an alias like this:
+
+@example
+alias tail='tail -s.1'
+@end example
 
 @item -F
 @opindex -F