Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:32:04 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "John W. De Boskey" <jwd@bsdwins.com>, "David O'Brien" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Subject: Re: Updated: cp -t patch (w/ commentary) Message-ID: <p05100c03b70ca78af686@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20010425100118.A35414@bsdwins.com> References: <20010423113324.A70387@FreeBSD.org> <20010425005942.A71859@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010425100118.A35414@bsdwins.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:01 AM -0400 4/25/01, John W. De Boskey wrote: >Hi David, Brian, > > Thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you were >able to review the patch also. Every time you have asked for people's opinions, they have said that it seems wrong to made add a specific option to the 'cp' command to address a generic problem with the 'xargs' command. You continue to pretend that this is not a valid comment on your proposed change. If you do not want our opinions, then stop asking for them. You then offer to do a similar update to 'mv', again to fix the problem when using 'mv' with 'xargs'. Will you also do updates for 'scp'? How about 'fs setacl'? (an AFS command). Other commands? Why should we fix all these commands to address a problem caused by using them with xargs? Why not fix 'xargs', at which point we don't have to care about any list of commands (even weird ones like 'fs setacl') which have this same problem. > I have reduced the runtime of the process so far by a solid >hour. My change to cp is the lowest level/minimal change fix >which allows me to maintain a O(1) time constraint. I've played >with (non-freebsd) versions of xargs already, and found them >(the various algorithms in xargs) to be more expensive than the >patch to cp. It is inconceivable that the proposed patch to 'xargs' would increase your running time. I don't mean the standard '-I' change, which would certainly destroy performance, but the proposed patch to 'xargs' which solves your specific problem in a general way. I'm still curious as to why you think the proposed change to xargs will cause you ANY performance problem. I simply can not imagine where you would get a performance problem from the -Y idea (though I'm still tempted to change the letter for that proposed option). Dimi has written one or two different patches to xargs. Did you try any of them? (ignore the fact that he used '-I' as the letter for what was supposed to be the NEW option, *that* was a mistake!). How DID that patch effect your running time? > I realize you folks are not here, and cannot examine the >processes I have to deal with first hand. I can only simply >ask you to trust that the work I and others have done while >coming to the conclusion that the cp patch is the best >alternative is correct. It isn't so much that we don't "trust" you, we're just wondering why the patch to 'xargs' does not solve the same problem you're trying to solve. We could also ask you to "trust" us, in that we already know the exact problem you are describing, and we *are* trying to address it. I've hit the exact same problem in the past, it's just that I've always solved it by writing a short script. If we are going to open the floor to adding non-standard options to standard unix commands, then it seems much better to add one option to one command, instead of adding options to a list of commands. > On a different note, I have spoken with my mentor >(seems funny calling him that these days) Jordan, and his >response to my email was: >---- > I think you should just commit the cp changes and >let the xargs weenies debate themselves silly if they >want to. :) The two issues are not really related. > >-Jordan >---- > I must say at this point, I tend to agree with him. I think the problem is that this *discussion* has rambled off in several different directions, many of which have no bearing to your situation. That doesn't mean we aren't honestly trying to come up with a good general solution which *is* directly related to your problem. It just means that we're tossing in a few extra things in addition to the solution for your situation. We should probably fix your problem first, and discuss the rest of it later. The "xargs weenies" have also offered an explicit patch that could be tried, but that patch is being ignored by you. It is not a matter of talking ourselves to death, it's a matter that we're looking for feedback from anyone who wants to respond to the proposed xargs changes. If you need an immediate fix, I'll be happy to change Dimi's patch to use a different letter, and commit the change later tonight. We'll forget this "ask for input" stage, if Jordan really finds it so bothersome. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05100c03b70ca78af686>