* [9fans] some light reading
@ 2004-08-18 19:46 andrey mirtchovski
2004-08-18 23:44 ` Tim Newsham
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2004-08-18 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
"Developing Simple and Efficient Package System using Union Mounts":
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8069
check the comments too -- seems like 2000 binds would be 'very inefficient'...
i just had to check for myself:
plan9% ramfs
plan9% cd /tmp
plan9% time ls
0.00u 0.00s 0.00r ls
plan9% cp /bin/bind bind.tmp
plan9% cat > bind.rc
#!/bin/rc
for (i in `{seq 1 2000}) bind.tmp -a /usr/andrey/tmp .
plan9% chmod 775 bind.rc
plan9% time bind.rc
0.27u 1.58s 2.52r bind.rc
plan9% time ls > /dev/null
13.17u 0.40s 15.25r ls
plan9% ls | wc -l
46002
plan9% ls /usr/andrey/tmp | wc -l
23
plan9% echo '46000/23' | hoc
2000
plan9%
andrey
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] some light reading
2004-08-18 19:46 [9fans] some light reading andrey mirtchovski
@ 2004-08-18 23:44 ` Tim Newsham
2004-08-18 23:52 ` boyd, rounin
2004-08-19 0:00 ` andrey mirtchovski
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Tim Newsham @ 2004-08-18 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> "Developing Simple and Efficient Package System using Union Mounts":
[...]
> check the comments too -- seems like 2000 binds would be 'very
> inefficient'...
This has been discussed a number of times in VSTa circles
(and I'm sure elsewhere).
Yes, it is inefficient, but no more so than if you have a shell
which searches $PATH each time it runs a command. If the shell
caches the lookups you can tradeoff some space for some time, of
course. I'm not familiar with the mount point searching code
in plan9, but I bet part of the inefficiency you are seeing is just
because the code wasn't written with large mount tables in mind.
All that is going on here is that the search mechanism is being
removed from several ad-hoc places (shell $PATH, dynamic loader
LD_LIBRARY_PATH, man $MANPATH, etc) and being pushed down into
a general mechanism in the kernel (or elsewhere in some operating
systems). I think its a good idea.
Of course I doubt the BSD or linux crowd would follow this up
by removing the various ad-hoc search mechanisms (partially because
namespaces arent customizable on a per-user basis, and partially
because they tend to add features, not remove them).
> andrey
Tim N.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] some light reading
2004-08-18 23:44 ` Tim Newsham
@ 2004-08-18 23:52 ` boyd, rounin
2004-08-19 0:00 ` andrey mirtchovski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: boyd, rounin @ 2004-08-18 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> Yes, it is inefficient, but no more so than if you have a shell
> which searches $PATH each time it runs a command.
nonsense. $PATH involves an O(n) number of exec(2)'s
and syscalls are expensive and n is usually not small. on
plan 9 n is 2 -- . and /bin and these two execs do all
the hard work in the kernel.
put the cache in the kernel, if such a thing is needed,
rather than replicating it badly n times in some horror
like bash.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] some light reading
2004-08-18 23:44 ` Tim Newsham
2004-08-18 23:52 ` boyd, rounin
@ 2004-08-19 0:00 ` andrey mirtchovski
2004-08-19 6:24 ` Boris Maryshev
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2004-08-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> Yes, it is inefficient, but no more so than if you have a shell
> which searches $PATH each time it runs a command.
tim, i was being sarcastic :) 15 seconds for 40000 files and 2 seconds
for 2000 binds is way better than what the guys in the comments
expected (remember, they haven't seen a working prototype of union
directories, at least not at userlevel, yet).
however, i'd be very interested to see the way the linux guys optimize
their kernel, shall they ever come to fully implement union
directories as in Plan 9 (linux is about doing things better, isn't
it? remember the recent TLB flush flamewar :)
andrey
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] some light reading
2004-08-19 0:00 ` andrey mirtchovski
@ 2004-08-19 6:24 ` Boris Maryshev
2004-08-19 18:39 ` Roman Shaposhnick
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Boris Maryshev @ 2004-08-19 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
В сообщении от Четверг 19 Август 2004 03:00 andrey mirtchovski написал(a):
> > Yes, it is inefficient, but no more so than if you have a shell
> > which searches $PATH each time it runs a command.
>
> tim, i was being sarcastic :) 15 seconds for 40000 files and 2 seconds
> for 2000 binds is way better than what the guys in the comments
> expected (remember, they haven't seen a working prototype of union
> directories, at least not at userlevel, yet).
>
> however, i'd be very interested to see the way the linux guys optimize
> their kernel, shall they ever come to fully implement union
> directories as in Plan 9 (linux is about doing things better, isn't
> it? remember the recent TLB flush flamewar :)
>
> andrey
Check out http://www.gobolinux.org/ You can try it on existing Linux machine
using their shell script or you can install it or run from cd. They also have
some kernel module. Creator claims he's not clueless.
boris
--
The universe is all a spin-off of the Big Bang.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] some light reading
2004-08-19 6:24 ` Boris Maryshev
@ 2004-08-19 18:39 ` Roman Shaposhnick
2004-08-19 22:37 ` Charles Forsyth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Roman Shaposhnick @ 2004-08-19 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:24:23AM +0300, Boris Maryshev wrote:
> В сообщении от Четверг 19 Август 2004 03:00 andrey mirtchovski написал(a):
> > > Yes, it is inefficient, but no more so than if you have a shell
> > > which searches $PATH each time it runs a command.
> >
> > tim, i was being sarcastic :) 15 seconds for 40000 files and 2 seconds
> > for 2000 binds is way better than what the guys in the comments
> > expected (remember, they haven't seen a working prototype of union
> > directories, at least not at userlevel, yet).
> >
> > however, i'd be very interested to see the way the linux guys optimize
> > their kernel, shall they ever come to fully implement union
> > directories as in Plan 9 (linux is about doing things better, isn't
> > it? remember the recent TLB flush flamewar :)
> >
> > andrey
> Check out http://www.gobolinux.org/ You can try it on existing Linux machine
> using their shell script or you can install it or run from cd. They also have
> some kernel module.
That's what petrifies me. I always wondered if there should be a sentence
for kernel abuse. Have you seen their ioctls ?
Thanks,
Roman.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] some light reading
2004-08-19 18:39 ` Roman Shaposhnick
@ 2004-08-19 22:37 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-08-19 22:38 ` boyd, rounin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Charles Forsyth @ 2004-08-19 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
>>I always wondered if there should be a sentence for kernel abuse.
you must spend your time reading the source code.
with plan 9, it's rehabilitation. with xBSD, it's purgatory.
with linux, it's hard labour.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] some light reading
2004-08-19 22:37 ` Charles Forsyth
@ 2004-08-19 22:38 ` boyd, rounin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: boyd, rounin @ 2004-08-19 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> with linux, it's hard labour.
pass me the sledgehammer ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-08-19 22:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-08-18 19:46 [9fans] some light reading andrey mirtchovski
2004-08-18 23:44 ` Tim Newsham
2004-08-18 23:52 ` boyd, rounin
2004-08-19 0:00 ` andrey mirtchovski
2004-08-19 6:24 ` Boris Maryshev
2004-08-19 18:39 ` Roman Shaposhnick
2004-08-19 22:37 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-08-19 22:38 ` boyd, rounin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).