From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Andrew Stitt Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII References: , Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:17:01 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: bb5abfb6-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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?