| 1 |
Jeroen Roovers: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 18 May 2016 19:31:38 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Göktürk Yüksek <gokturk@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> There could be some performance implications. cat will usually do |
| 6 |
>> slow, buffered I/O. cp tries to be smarter with allocation, i.e. it |
| 7 |
>> may take advantage of the btrfs specific clone to do a O(1) copy. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Really? We're talking about editing streams of usually a couple of |
| 10 |
> kilobytes and performance is what you're worried about? Because of |
| 11 |
> not using one particular filesystem maybe? Really? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
I wasn't against the use of redirection, just wondering if there was a |
| 15 |
reason to prefer that over cp. To me, an extra dup2() in redirection |
| 16 |
seems useless. You can also argue that an extra syscall() has no visible |
| 17 |
impact and I wouldn't object. cp should work as efficient as shell |
| 18 |
redirection and potentially better in some cases. Sure, it won't make a |
| 19 |
noticeable difference with such small files. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> jer |
| 22 |
> |
Archives