Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:01:18 -0400 From: "John W. De Boskey" <jwd@bsdwins.com> To: "David O'Brien" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Subject: Re: Updated: cp -t patch (w/ commentary) Message-ID: <20010425100118.A35414@bsdwins.com> In-Reply-To: <20010425005942.A71859@dragon.nuxi.com>; from freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:59:42AM -0700 References: <20010423113324.A70387@FreeBSD.org> <20010425005942.A71859@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi David, Brian, Thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you were able to review the patch also. I am dealing with a production process that currently runs approximately 10 hours. (on 28 866Mhz processors, 2 Netapps). This process fell into my lap about 2 months ago. After studying the process, the 1st item that came to the fore-front was the number of fork/exec pairs occuring for the file copy process. Please note, as written in previous emails, the copy process copies files from multiple directories to a singular directory. I have reduced the runtime of the process so far by a solid hour. My change to cp is the lowest level/minimal change fix which allows me to maintain a O(1) time constraint. I've played with (non-freebsd) versions of xargs already, and found them (the various algorithms in xargs) to be more expensive than the patch to cp. I realize you folks are not here, and cannot examine the processes I have to deal with first hand. I can only simply ask you to trust that the work I and others have done while coming to the conclusion that the cp patch is the best alternative is correct. On a different note, I have spoken with my mentor (seems funny calling him that these days) Jordan, and his response to my email was: ---- I think you should just commit the cp changes and let the xargs weenies debate themselves silly if the want to. :) The two issues are not really related. -Jordan ---- I must say at this point, I tend to agree with him. Basically, my review request was skipped over and folks simply went on to discuss/argue the merits/demerits of various patchs to xargs. The question of whether xargs is appropriate and maintains adequate performance for my particular process seems to have been left on the roadside... I hope I haven't rambled to much. And again, thanks for taking the time to respond. -John ----- Current List's Original Message ----- > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:33:24AM -0700, John W. De Boskey wrote: > > After some feedback, I have changed the patch slightly. Rename > > -d to -t and remove the requirement for the option to have a > > value. > > I thought people generally agreed the right fix was to add functionality > to `xargs', not `cp' as you aren't scratching the general itch. > > -- > -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010425100118.A35414>