> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:32:46 +0100 > From: Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:24:30PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > > > Though for a program like cp, this may qualify as a big diff. :) > > > > Continuing in my "make IO suck less" phase, cp would be a lot more > > efficient if it didn't bounce the disk heads around so much. Instead of > > using a tiny 64k buffer, use an amount based on a small fraction of RAM. > > Isn't it the task of the buffer cache to optimize memory use here?
Exactly the point I was just about to raise.
