Sponge's killer feature is that it doesn't open the output file until
after the input is finished. Using it in a pipeline removes this,
because it's something else instead of sponge writing to the file.
There is something I don't understand, why the temporal file is not deleted
after writing
On 07/05/2013 04:48 PM, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
Sponge's killer feature is that it doesn't open the output file until
after the input is finished. Using it in a pipeline removes this,
because it's something else instead of sponge writing to the file.
There is something I don't
Files created by “tmpfile” are automatically deleted after they are
closed. Also, how do you delete a file you don’t know the name of anyway?
I didn't know it, thanks for your reply.
How?
On 3 July 2013 08:13, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
won't this increase cache misses for everything else?
On 7/2/13, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July 2013 15:50, Galos, David galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
I'm failing to see the problem with loading everything
On 2 July 2013 20:41, Galos, David galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
and also depends on having a non-read only filesystem
to write too.
You understand that in order to change the target file, the
filesystem needs to be writable, right?
What if I had extremely limited filespace though, or
On 07/02/2013 07:54 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
If on any system other than linux, I would consider loading into ram,
but because of memory overcommit, malloc never fails, the whole system
crawls to a halt, and the oom killer takes 20 minutes to put
everything back together. No thanks.
Okay so
just give it up, this thread sucks.
On 7/3/13, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2013 07:54 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
If on any system other than linux, I would consider loading into ram,
but because of memory overcommit, malloc never fails, the whole system
crawls to a
In my opinion it is okay to have sponge called
without arguments to write to stdout.
I disagree. The only use case I could think of was
something like this:
sed 's/foo/bar/' file | sponge | tee file | frobnicate
However, that would fail to work as expected, so I have
removed the feature.
doesn't sponge soak up into memory, not into a file?
Calvin
On 2 July 2013 13:29, Galos, David galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
In my opinion it is okay to have sponge called
without arguments to write to stdout.
I disagree. The only use case I could think of was
something like this:
doesn't sponge soak up into memory, not into a file?
Soaking up into a file allows sponge to work on large files. It also
greatly simplifies the actual sponge code.
It also sucks. avoiding a temporary file is the whole point to sponge.
otherwise:
cat file | grep file file_temp; mv file_temp file;
On 2 July 2013 14:19, Galos, David galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
doesn't sponge soak up into memory, not into a file?
Soaking up into a file allows sponge
It also sucks. avoiding a temporary file is the whole point to sponge.
otherwise:
cat file | grep file file_temp; mv file_temp file;
Actually, it would be
tmp = $(mktemp)
grep 'foo' file $tmp
cat $tmp file
Not only that, but tmpfile(3) is safer with respect to race
I'm failing to see the problem with loading everything into memory.
On 2 July 2013 15:39, Galos, David galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
It also sucks. avoiding a temporary file is the whole point to sponge.
otherwise:
cat file | grep file file_temp; mv file_temp file;
Actually, it would
I'm failing to see the problem with loading everything into memory.
If the next step is write that to a temp file there is a big
problem. There's nothing wrong with the present tempfile approach.
It's reasonably fast, it's completely portable (so no crazy getrlimit
or /proc reading). Strace
If on any system other than linux, I would consider loading into ram,
but because of memory overcommit, malloc never fails, the whole system
crawls to a halt, and the oom killer takes 20 minutes to put
everything back together. No thanks.
Okay so you are discussing a problem with your
and also depends on having a non-read only filesystem
to write too.
You understand that in order to change the target file, the
filesystem needs to be writable, right?
It's reasonably fast
I want faster.
It's so fast that you never even realized that the moreutils
version uses a tempfile!
Maybe a better solution could be using mmap.
Perhaps. I still wouldn't know how much to map, so I'd need
mremap, and from the manpage:
This call is Linux-specific, and should not be used
in programs intended to be portable.
If you write a portable patch making use of mmap,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Galos, David
galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
Except it does not actually sponge in the stdout case, only when
writing to file. Perhaps it would be better to drop support for stdout?
Or cat temp file to stdout at the end? Why does it open a temp file
when not
Hello!
I have rewritten sponge(1) so stdout is not such of a special case
anymore. Now it also writes to symbolic links' destinations instead and
supports other kinds of files. Also output to stdout works as it should
now (soaks it up first). In my opinion it is okay to have sponge called
Hi!
I wrote a sponge program, but I am not fully convinced of it yet. What
do you think?
Regards,
Jakob Kramer
commit 3565860b40ea4a8220d5029e3d74b437a9205cda
Author: Jakob Kramer jakob.kra...@gmx.de
Date: Tue Jun 25 19:55:37 2013 +0200
added sponge
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
Isn't this just 'tee [file] /dev/null'?
On 25 June 2013 14:34, Galos, David galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
Isn't this just 'tee [file] /dev/null'?
No.
sponge sucks up stdin, waits till it is closed then puts it out to stdout
On 2013-06-25, at 20:39, Calvin Morrison wrote:
sponge sucks up stdin, waits till it is closed then puts it out to stdout
Except it does not actually sponge in the stdout case, only when writing to
file. Perhaps it would be better to drop support for stdout? Or cat temp
file to stdout at the
[2013-06-25 20:22] Jakob Kramer jakob.kra...@gmx.de
I wrote a sponge program, but I am not fully convinced of it yet. What
do you think?
I think you shouldn't rename(2). Renaming a file and replacing it's
contents are quite different things. Take for example:
$ mkdir a
$
Except it does not actually sponge in the stdout case, only when
writing to file. Perhaps it would be better to drop support for stdout?
Or cat temp file to stdout at the end? Why does it open a temp file
when not using it?
Definitely drop stdout support, its existence makes no sense.
To
25 matches
Mail list logo
