From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: From: Stephen Parker To: "'9fans@cse.psu.edu'" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: RE: [9fans] dumb question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:44:02 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: bb6114ec-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 most of us don't spend much time moving directories around. maybe once per week. maybe. its not worth optimising this. stephen -- Stephen Parker. Pi Technology. +44 (0)1223 203438. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Stitt [mailto:astitt@cats.ucsc.edu] > Sent: 27 June 2002 10:17 > To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu > Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Sam wrote: > > > > 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. > > I'm sorry, but there must be something wrong with my mail > reader. Are we > > really arguing about 30k? Am I dreaming? Are you trying > to run plan9 > > on a machine with 256k of memory? > > > > ... > im arguing about the apparent acceptance of a solution which wastes > resources, sure its 30k, but you can do quite a bit with 30k. > and if you > actually have lots of users, things start to slow down. point > im trying to > make: tar|tar uses more memory and resources then a recursive > copy, ive > thoroughly explained this many times. whats so hard to grasp here? >