Slashdot Mirror

google are so hard! https://www.manpagez.com/man/1...

From the ipsec(4) manpage for Mac OS X 10.6, history section:

The implementation described herein appeared in WIDE/KAME IPv6/IPsec stack.

The KAME stack is the same stack used in NetBSD and FreeBSD.

Even though NeXTSTEP was forked earlier from the BSD codebase than the other BSD flavors there has still been considerable sharing between it, Mac OS X, and the other BSD flavors. OpenBSD is one exception to this since it tends to be a more closed ecosystem than the other BSD variants.

I'd count an infinite loop as a bug...

Unless it's documented.

Check the nice manual page

Increment it slowly and he won't know whats going on (mu-ha ha)

Then you've got BSD Man pages in OS X 10.5.

http://www.manpagez.com/man/1/cat/osx-10.5.php

http://www.manpagez.com/man/1/hdiutil/

If these aren't robust enough for you nothing will help.

Then you've got BSD Man pages in OS X 10.5.

http://www.manpagez.com/man/1/cat/osx-10.5.php

http://www.manpagez.com/man/1/hdiutil/

If these aren't robust enough for you nothing will help.

The POSIX specifies that closing a file does not force it to permanent storage. To get that, you MUST call fsync() .

So the required code to write a new file safely is:

1. fd = fopen(...)
2. fwrite(..., fd)
3. fsync(fd)
4. fclose(fd)

The is no performance problem because fsync(fd) syncs only the requested file. However, that's in theory... use EXT3 and you'll quickly learn that fsync() is only able to sync the whole filesystem - it doesn't matter which file you ask it to sync, it will always sync the whole filesystem! Obviously that is going to be really slow.

Because of this, way too many software developers have dropped the fsync() call to make the software usable (that is, not too slow) with EXT3. The correct fix is to change all the broken software and in the process that will make EXT3 unusable because of slow performance. After that EXT3 will be fixed or it will be abandoned. An alternative choice is to use fdatasync() instead of fsync() if the features of fdatasync() are enough. If I've understood correctly, EXT3 is able to do fdatasync() with acceptable performance.

If any piece of software is writing to disk without using either fsync() or fdatasync() it's basically telling the system: the file I'm writing is not important, try to store it if you don't have better things to do.

My personal soapbox is always nice. In the old days, when cpu cycles were crazy valuable, people were very careful to set up their jobs to not hog too many cycles.

These days, that's not so much the case, and when resources are plentiful, it doesn't NEED to be the case. But if you have a lot of things going you need to be able to prevent everything from trying to run at 100%...Don't need some reporting job crapping on a critical process.

So yea, job priority: nice, renice, getpriority, and setpriority

My personal soapbox is always nice. In the old days, when cpu cycles were crazy valuable, people were very careful to set up their jobs to not hog too many cycles.

These days, that's not so much the case, and when resources are plentiful, it doesn't NEED to be the case. But if you have a lot of things going you need to be able to prevent everything from trying to run at 100%...Don't need some reporting job crapping on a critical process.

So yea, job priority: nice, renice, getpriority, and setpriority

My personal soapbox is always nice. In the old days, when cpu cycles were crazy valuable, people were very careful to set up their jobs to not hog too many cycles.

These days, that's not so much the case, and when resources are plentiful, it doesn't NEED to be the case. But if you have a lot of things going you need to be able to prevent everything from trying to run at 100%...Don't need some reporting job crapping on a critical process.

So yea, job priority: nice, renice, getpriority, and setpriority

My personal soapbox is always nice. In the old days, when cpu cycles were crazy valuable, people were very careful to set up their jobs to not hog too many cycles.

These days, that's not so much the case, and when resources are plentiful, it doesn't NEED to be the case. But if you have a lot of things going you need to be able to prevent everything from trying to run at 100%...Don't need some reporting job crapping on a critical process.

So yea, job priority: nice, renice, getpriority, and setpriority

My personal soapbox is always nice. In the old days, when cpu cycles were crazy valuable, people were very careful to set up their jobs to not hog too many cycles.

These days, that's not so much the case, and when resources are plentiful, it doesn't NEED to be the case. But if you have a lot of things going you need to be able to prevent everything from trying to run at 100%...Don't need some reporting job crapping on a critical process.

So yea, job priority: nice, renice, getpriority, and setpriority