bug-findutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[bug #30504] bug/rfe....the "-P" option seems to be unusable by itself


From: Linda A. Walsh
Subject: [bug #30504] bug/rfe....the "-P" option seems to be unusable by itself
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:24:21 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6

URL:
  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30504>

                 Summary: bug/rfe....the "-P" option seems to be unusable by
itself
                 Project: findutils
            Submitted by: law
            Submitted on: Tue 20 Jul 2010 10:24:20 PM PDT
                Category: xargs
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: 
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
                 Release: 4.4.0
           Fixed Release: None

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

I'd like to suggest the -P option be 'fixed' to be usable by itself.
If I use the -P option by itself I want xargs __ to try__ to use up to
"N" processors...  Right now, it doesn't try at all unless you force
it to by using the -n/-l options.

That makes it sorta worthless...

I'd like to decide what is a good number of processes to run concurrently
for
a given "program" (that is to be run under xargs) and have xargs work out
the
rest.

I don't know what the total number of args is, so the only valid option,
most
of the time, is -n1.
I'd like to suggest that the program default to -n1 when -P is specified
alone --
making a -P option, by itself, "useful"...otherwise, my 'max' cpus values is
ignored  and xargs will never use more than 1 cpu.  That's certainly NOT
the intent if someone specifies "-P" by itself without "-n"...

Wouldn't this make sense?

yes?

thanks! 

Linda




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30504>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/




reply via email to

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