Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!enea!kth!draken!tut!santra!kampi!hsu
From: hsu@kampi.hut.fi (Heikki Suonsivu)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: sticky bit
Keywords: stricky bit has its uses
Message-ID: <18714@santra.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jan 89 05:02:12 GMT
References: <18016@adm.BRL.MIL> <14750@cisunx.UUCP> <1359@mtunb.ATT.COM> <314@twwells.uucp> <8724@alice.UUCP>
Sender: news@santra.UUCP
Reply-To: hsu@kampi.UUCP (Heikki Suonsivu)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 16

In article <8724@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes:
>with and without virtual memory, and have never found any improvement by
>setting the sticky bit for any program.

Depends heavily on hardware. 386 clone running microport V.3 with 8M
of memory took 40 seconds to load up emacs, sticky bit saved 10-20
secs.  With single user it may be worth it.  Low speed is probably due
to stupid non-buffering controller, I'm now testing 1:1 interleave
controller and it really speeds things up, emacs loads in 10 secs
instead of that 40... with same hard disk. PC:s, you know ;-)

>was developed). Unless a file is *really* scattered all over the disk this
>win is marginal.

System V does very bad job of keeping disks unfragmented. Fsanalyze
told me that I had my CT miniframe emacs (~550k) in 400 fragments :-)