On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:01:58 +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> let xargs fill up the rest of
> the commandline
I'd never noticed that -I implies -L 1. That's the key, as it forces one
command per input rather than batching of the input.
Thanks for helping to clear that up.
- And
On 10.10.2009 17:43, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:54:25 +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
>
> > It makes a tremendous difference if you have to fork/exec one program
> > per file for, say, 100,000 files. Or (-t here) about 10 instances doing
> > 10,000 files.
>
> I'm afraid I
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:54:25 +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> It makes a tremendous difference if you have to fork/exec one program
> per file for, say, 100,000 files. Or (-t here) about 10 instances doing
> 10,000 files.
I'm afraid I'm still too obtuse (or perhaps just coffee-deprived) to
On 10.10.2009 13:33, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:22:11 -0400, Sam wrote:
>
> > As far as I know it's still there
>
> That's what I thought. So what is the point behind --target-dir?
>
> Sorry for the puzzlement...
Performance.
It makes a tremendous difference if you have to
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:22:11 -0400, Sam wrote:
> As far as I know it's still there
That's what I thought. So what is the point behind --target-dir?
Sorry for the puzzlement...
Andrew
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change
