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

Re: Faster network?



On 05.03.2006 09:26, Uno Engborg wrote:

Jeff Vian wrote:

On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 10:34 +0100, shrek-m 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


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