From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ish Rattan <ishwar@pali.cps.cmich.edu>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1020626121736.6376A-100000@teach.ic.ucsc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0206270532310.19087-100000@pali.cps.cmich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:33:37 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: bbe38882-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Andrew Stitt wrote:

> 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
And they also use tar at the same time too!
As I said before keep it up :-)

-ishwar