Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxt!neal
From: neal@pyuxt.UUCP (N. T. Nuckolls)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re:  What happened to the '-x' option of dcopy(1M) ???
Message-ID: <203@pyuxt.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 20:14:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxt.203
Posted: Fri Oct 26 20:14:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Oct-84 04:42:02 EDT
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 19

What would be the PURPOSE of forcing executables to be
stored contiguously?  This *could* reduce drive seeking if
accesses against the particular filesystem tend to group
in time with type (i.e. executable, non-executable).
In the case of mixed programs and their data on the same
filesystem and assuming that data i/o exceeds initial
text load the benefit from the '-x' option would be from
having the *non-executables* (data files) contiguous.
I see no benefit on systems where "program data" is localized
in its own filesystem(s).

I am attracted by the idea of keeping file system code clean
of garbage collection routines and have had good experiences
with dcopy(1M).


Neal Nuckolls
[ihnp4,vax135]!pyuxt!neal