/ 2006-08-09 14:45:16 +0100
\ David Lee:
> So I think we're agreed on the principle of rewriting it.
>
> But since my earlier email a further thought has crossed my mind about the
> merits of:
> thing1 >> fifo
> thing2 >> fifo
> thing3 >> fifo
> vs:
> (thing1; thing2l thing3) >> fifo
>
> The first does three sets of open/close operations, the second does
> only one. Efficiency.
>
> Also each operation may have potential "end-of-data" or "flush" semantics
> on the fifo, whereas the second does all these as a single set.
right. see also my other mail.
> This is probably not sigificant. But if it is (or if there is a future
> chance of its becoming significant) then the second version (the single
> parenthesised subshell into a single call to the fifo) may be preferable.
>
> I'll prepare a local-workspace patch for the:
> (thing1; thing2l thing3) >> fifo
> variant and apply it post-2.0.7 shipment.
the original version semantics would probably best be matched by using a
second cat again, like this:
(echo ">>>"; cat -; echo "<<<") | cat - >> $HA_FIFO
--
: Lars Ellenberg Tel +43-1-8178292-0 :
: LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Fax +43-1-8178292-82 :
: Schoenbrunner Str. 244, A-1120 Vienna/Europe http://www.linbit.com :
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
