From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: "Warrier, Sadanand (Sadanand)" To: "'9fans@cse.psu.edu'" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: RE: [9fans] dumb question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:00:42 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: bab97296-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On my solaris machine ls -la /usr/sbin/tar -r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin 63544 Nov 24 1998 /usr/sbin/tar* ls -la /opt/exp/gnu/bin/tar -rwxrwxr-x 1 exptools software 161328 Jul 4 2000 /opt/exp/gnu/bin/tar* S -----Original Message----- From: forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk [mailto:forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:41 PM To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question > cp is about 60k in plan9 and tar is 80k in plan9. cp on 3 seperate unix > machines (linux, SCO unix, os-X) in its overcomplicated copying directory > tree glory is under 30k, on sunOS it happens to be 17k. to tar then untar > requires two processes using a shared 80k tar, plus some intermediate data > to archive and process the data, then immediatly reverse this process. cp > _could_ be written to do all this in 17k but instead our 60k cp cant do > it, and instead we need two entries in the process table and twice the > number ofuser space pages. there's a useful point to be made here with respect to other such comparisons: you're overlooking the cost on the other systems of the (usually) large memory space consumed by the dynamically-linked shared libraries. that's why their cp seems `small' and plan9's seems `large'. with plan 9, cp really does take 60k (code, plus data+stack), on the others, it's anyone's guess: the 17k is the tip of the iceberg.