[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE : Re: error and program_name

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: RE : Re: error and program_name
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:13:25 +0100

Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> We could amortize the fork daemonize the daemon only once but we must
> care about security... but i could be done if fork is prohibitive.

Starting a daemon...
Yes, that sounds challenging.

> Unfortunatly context switching is the main cost so, i expext a heavy use
> However the probability of faillure times the damage are too high.

We also take into account the fact that any work-around code
will run only on systems that lack *at function support
and that lack the means to emulate them robustly (via /proc).
I.e., any new code would be used only on systems that are
not evolving with POSIX.

> I really prefer to be slow but safe than fast but sometimes loss my data.

How how could the current situation lead to data loss?
Or do you mean something else?

FYI, on modern systems, the tools are fast *and* safe.
We're talking about what happens only on systems with
inferior system/library support.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]