From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question From: okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-yxtgetpnocemimcojvkikhdqbq" Message-Id: <20020627010700.D1566199A3@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:05:57 +0900 Topicbox-Message-UUID: bb10811c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-yxtgetpnocemimcojvkikhdqbq Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please let me say one very important thing. ^_^ If you feel something is missing in Plan 9, you'd better to think why they eliminated it, particularly when it's related to basic unix commands. I think there is no such thing which they eliminated carelessly in Plan 9. I'm saying this from my many such experiences. :-) Kenji --upas-yxtgetpnocemimcojvkikhdqbq Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp ([192.168.1.3]) by diabase; Thu Jun 27 02:44:41 JST 2002 Received: from elmo.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp (elmo.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp [157.16.103.2]) by granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12723 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:34:46 +0900 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by elmo.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-02040219) with ESMTP id CAA16826 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:45:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.8.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id C2D7E19A33; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk (mercury.bath.ac.uk [138.38.32.81]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 5F06819A2A for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:44:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from news by mercury.bath.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 17NGnC-0003uy-00 for 9fans@cse.psu.edu; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:41:22 +0100 Received: from GATEWAY by bath.ac.uk with netnews for 9fans@cse.psu.edu (9fans@cse.psu.edu) To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Andrew Stitt Message-ID: Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: , <9fdd4f468be52d3ca43b4c5ed3371463@9fs.org> Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:41:06 GMT On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Nigel Roles wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:41:06 GMT, Andrew Stitt wrote: > > >On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote: > > > >> Again, from rsc tiny tools :-) > >> > >> ; cat /bin/dircp > >> #!/bin/rc > >> > >> switch($#*){ > >> case 2 > >> @{cd $1 && tar c .}|@{cd $2 && tar x} > >> case * > >> echo usage: dircp from to >[1=2] > >> } > >> > >> > >why must i needlessly shove all the files into a tar, then unpack them > >again? thats incredibly inefficient! that uses roughly twice the space > >that should be required, it has to copy the files twice, and it has the > >overhead of having to needless run the data through tar. Is there a better > >solution to this? > > Andrew > > This does not use any more space. The tar commands are piped together. > I doubt a specific cp -r type command would be particularly more efficient. > > > > > i beg to differ, tar uses memory, it uses system resources, i fail to see how you think this is just as good as just recursively copying files. The point is I shouldnt have to needlessly use this other program (for Tape ARchives) to copy directorys. If this is on a fairly busy file server needlessly running tar twice is simply wasteful and unacceptable when you could just follow the directory tree. --upas-yxtgetpnocemimcojvkikhdqbq--