>> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:32:46 +0100 >> From: Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> >> >> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:24:30PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: >> >> > Though for a program like cp, this may qualify as a big diff. :) >> > >> > Continuing in my "make IO suck less" phase, cp would be a lot more >> > efficient if it didn't bounce the disk heads around so much. Instead of >> > using a tiny 64k buffer, use an amount based on a small fraction of RAM. >> >> Isn't it the task of the buffer cache to optimize memory use here? > >Exactly the point I was just about to raise.
I agree completely. It is also non-portable. cp is the most basic of basic unix utilities, and if enhancing it's performance requires such a non-portable construct, then where are we headed? Unix is first and foremost about providing a fair-share experience, even if it isn't the most optimal (for many different definitions of optimal).
