--- "Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "What, Slowlaris still exists?" > > > > Well, I sure was blown away by the incredible > > difference between Solaris 8 find and gnu find. > > > > This would be the gnu find that needs one to use a > nonstandard option > -noleaf to tell it _not_ to optimize out one stat() > per directory? That > could've been done automatically by testing the > assumption on each > filesystem, and altering its behavior adaptively, > but no, they had to > add an extra flag to ensure it behaves correctly on > AFS and ISO filesystems.
No idea. Maybe you can tell me what it was. A qmail queue on a UFS filesystem with somewhere around 500k mails in the queue. A script that checks the queue size basically runs something like this: 'find queue/mess/* -print | wc -w' Solaris find took over 24 hours and still I got no result and was waiting. After I asked my manager why does it take so long, he told me to give gnu find a shot. In seconds I got the answer. This gave me two impressions. 1) The solaris kernel had great I/O. Using just seconds to report about 500 thousand files is something I do not remember with 2.4 linux distros even when there is no i/o contention. 2) Solaris find sucked. maybe you can tell me what is what? > > Performance gained at the expense of incorrect > behavior that requires > special usage to avoid strikes me as highly suspect. Please explain. > > (OTOH, for all I know it has other features and > optimizations that are > perfectly reasonable; and as long as they aren't > incompatible, I wouldn't > have a problem with them being adopted.) ... so do you know the differences or not? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
