Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!harvard!husc6!uwvax!caip!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: sticky bit obsolete?
Message-ID: <601@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Aug-86 11:24:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.601
Posted: Sat Aug  9 11:24:53 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Aug-86 03:54:12 EDT
References: <16@vianet.UUCP>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 22
Keywords: no

In article <16@vianet.UUCP> devine@vianet (Bob Devine) writes:
>
>  Here is a question to people porting UNIX (and derivatives) to fast
>machines:  is the sticky bit idea worthwhile?   That is, on machines
>with slow disks it was worth keeping the text in the swap area, but,
>with faster disks and more memory, has the sticky bit become obsolete?
>
>Bob

No, you still save (potentially) all kinds of overhead and disk I/O.
Try the following I you aren't memory bound, and haven't done it already.

Set the sticky bit on vi (or your favorite non-gnuemacs editor) -
	note improved repsonse time when you say vi fish.

Next move your favorite terminal entry to the first n lines of /etc/termcap.

voila! instant unix tuning...a win ~90% of the time.
-- 
George Robbins - now working with,	uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)