> * Sam Steingold [2011-08-03 11:12:42 -0400]:
>
> here is my current top:
>
> 29475 sds 25 0 240m 171m 1344 R 100.1 1.4 15:58.20 bash
> 10482 sds 25 0 231m 162m 1336 R 100.1 1.4 16:24.99 bash
> 24588 sds 25 0 230m 161m 1340 R 99.7 1.3 13:21.40 bash
1. this is out
> * Chet Ramey [2011-06-13 15:26:27 -0400]:
>
> On 6/13/11 1:10 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>> The only feature you describe above missing with that configuration is
>> that existing shells won't find history commands written out
>> in-between. I have a tendency to close/open bash shells, so I d
On 6/16/11 3:55 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Actually, this relates to a thing I'd been looking into recently. My
> bash history is 11MB now, and on some machines I have a noticeable load
> time as it reads the history. I'd thought about adding support for
> incremental read to bash history/read
I wonder how much de-duping the really old history would help. It seems
that HISTCONTROL='erasedups' only affects the history of the current
bash process (i.e. commands that were typed since you started that
shell), and it leaves all the stuff it loaded from .bash_history alone.
As a quick tes
I agree with Marcel's points about keeping a big bash history, although
I wasn't sure if discussing "why" users keep a big bash history was on
topic or not.
Marcel (Felix) Giannelia wrote at 13:16 (EDT) on Tuesday:
> A .bash_history file going back years and years is still only a few
> megs,
Actu
I do this too -- because we can :)
A .bash_history file going back years and years is still only a few
megs, and it's faster than Google for those moments like "right... I
know I've mounted a crypto Luks partition with this particular set of
nonstandard flags and parameters before, like 6 year
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 17:10, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I have all my bash history going back to
> 2003-10-15 accessible to me.
Why?
On 6/13/11 1:10 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> The only feature you describe above missing with that configuration is
> that existing shells won't find history commands written out
> in-between. I have a tendency to close/open bash shells, so I don't run
> into that problem.
>
> Unfortunately, hav
Jayesh Badwaik wrote at 03:18 (EDT) on Saturday:
> Every now and then I want a command from one of the instances of bash
> to be used in another instance. In that case, the history of bash is
> not that useful since it is quiet linear in nature and does not store
> history of all bash instances.
