Faster network?

[shrek-m at gmx.de]

On 05.03.2006 09:26, Uno Engborg wrote:

> Jeff Vian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 10:34 +0100, shrek-m at gmx.de wrote: 
>>
>>> On 03.03.2006 09:12, Mike Chambers wrote: 
>>>
>>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default
>>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max
>>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_default
>>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_max
>>>> echo 0 >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps
>>>> echo 1 >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_sack
>>>> echo 1 >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_window_scaling 
>>>
>>> why  ">>"   ?
>>> imho this should be  ">" 
>>
>> For me it works with either syntax, but AFAIK the > is the best (and
>> most universal) choice
>
> > is not more universal than >>. The difference is that >> appends to 
> an existing file
> while > starts writing the file from the beginning. So if the file you 
> are >:ing to contains
> lines you want to keep they will be gone if you do >.


i know this since m$-dos 2.x
this is the reason why i am surprised that it does not look like this 
after the bad example. eg.

---- not ----
# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps
1
0
--------


it seems that this is not valid in the proc-filesystem.
well,  for good reasons.



---- test ----
# cat test
cat: test: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden

# echo "0" >> test ; cat test
0

# echo "1" >> test ; cat test
0
1

# echo "1" > test ; cat test
1
--------

-- 
shrek-m