Re: little cp diff

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Bob Beck
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 11:45 am

> Now I look at the diff and see that the memory used is reasonably

If multiple copies of anything are run on a machine with low phys,
you'll end up swapping.

Again, if you're really focusing on being able to run the maximum
number of cp's on a memory starved machine we can do it as a one byte
read and write loop. come on, this is not the typical or even the
extreme case.

You could always check avm rather than physmen and base it on what was free.
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
little cp diff, Ted Unangst, (Fri Feb 5, 7:24 pm)
Re: little cp diff, Otto Moerbeek, (Sat Feb 6, 5:32 am)
Re: little cp diff, Mark Kettenis, (Sat Feb 6, 6:44 am)
Re: little cp diff, Ted Unangst, (Sat Feb 6, 7:14 am)
Re: little cp diff, Otto Moerbeek, (Sat Feb 6, 7:53 am)
Re: little cp diff, Vadim Zhukov, (Sat Feb 6, 8:27 am)
Re: little cp diff, Bob Beck, (Sat Feb 6, 9:45 am)
Re: little cp diff, Ted Unangst, (Sat Feb 6, 10:58 am)
Re: little cp diff, Bob Beck, (Sat Feb 6, 11:32 am)
Re: little cp diff, Otto Moerbeek, (Sat Feb 6, 11:35 am)
Re: little cp diff, Claus Assmann, (Sat Feb 6, 11:37 am)
Re: little cp diff, Claudio Jeker, (Sat Feb 6, 11:42 am)
Re: little cp diff, Bob Beck, (Sat Feb 6, 11:45 am)
Re: little cp diff, Bob Beck, (Sat Feb 6, 11:49 am)
Re: little cp diff, Ted Unangst, (Sat Feb 6, 8:42 pm)