Hello Garrett,
Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 5:15:52 PM, you wrote:
GDA> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello Garrett,
>>
>> Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 12:26:11 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> GDA> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>>>> Hello Garrett,
>>>>
>>>> In my case I'm rsync'ing entire file systems from other servers which
>>>> are not necessarily Solaris servers. The specific device is coming
>>>> from BSD system. Looks like ZFS is handling them fine but one needs to
>>>> use 64bit userland tools, I haven't testes UFS or any other
>>>> file system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> GDA> Minor nodes are inherently not portable between systems. Why on earth
>> GDA> would you want to rsync them from one OS to another?
>>
>> It's not about if it works in rsync or not - I was just surprised that
>> it is possible to create such a device with 64bit application but then
>> default tools like ls will fail and one has to specifically point to
>> 64bit version of ls. I would prefer if ls was using isaexec which
>> would help to avoid such problems.
>>
GDA> isaexec adds a small perf. penalty. If you really want isaexec, you
GDA> can change it on your system.
GDA> I personally am not fond of making default system utilities isaexec based.
Probably not all of them - but why are you so much concerned about
performance overhead caused by using isaexec for ls utility?
I would argue that in ls case it's more important to end-user that it
works than if it takes a little bit more time to start it.
If someone has an application which executes ls hundreds times per
second so isaexec overhead might be important than that someone could
point it's app to a specific ls - I think it's much less common case
to worry about. (then my case isn't common either...)
--
Best regards,
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
