From 64ceb14984cbeb5d73a19a2ee1cc1c718f46a4de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pádraig Brady Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:44:24 +0200 Subject: doc: improve tail -f vs. inotify description and advice * doc/coreutils.texi (tail invocation): Adjust, and add an example. --- doc/coreutils.texi | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/coreutils.texi b/doc/coreutils.texi index fa7e015f1..c091b7fea 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 -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf