Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #16930

Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Followups directed to: comp.unix.shell

Show all headers | View raw

[Followup-To: comp.unix.shell]

In article <poBhP.1243903$bYV2.919023@fx17.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> [snip]
>>> There are cases where it _does_ cause performance degradation, if one or
>>> more of the PATH elements refer to NFS filesystems, for example.
>>
>>The internet RTT from Reading/ UK to Dallas/ Texas is about
>>0.12s. That's fast enough that there's no noticeable latency in
>>interactive shell sessions. I doubt that many real-world NFS
>>installations span ⅕ of the planet and hence, the latencies certainly
>>ought to be a lot lower.
>>
>
>You seem to have have forgotten that the NFS server needs to
>do a directory lookup on the file server, which adds to the R/T
>latency, sometimes significantly on a busy filesystem.  Add
>two or three NFS-based directories in the PATH variable and it
>starts to become noticable. Even on a 100Gb/sec ethernet
>LAN.
>
>>
>>I'm growing a bit allergic to NFS as universal example of deviant
>>behaviour --- that's a problem of NFS and not of code innocently and
>>unknowingly making use of it.
>
>It is something that people run into every day in the real world.

Remember wuarchive?  They used to used to provide access to the
collection via (read-only) NFS.  When I was young, someone at
our site had added that to the automounter maps.

There was a local sysadmin who was, er, not exactly highly
regarded.  At one point another sysadmin logged into a machine
and saw that the load was really, really high; this would have
been a Sun 4/380 class computer and load was like 3 or 4, all
uninterruptable kernel reads.  Anyway, it turns out the first
guy had added some directory in the automounted wuarchive tree
to his $PATH.  And that's the sort of thing one does to become
"poorly regarded by colleagues."

	- Dan C.

Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-14 11:14 +0100
  Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-14 13:55 +0000
  Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-14 17:16 +0000
    Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-14 17:22 +0000
      Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-14 17:59 +0000
      Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-14 19:23 +0000
        Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-14 22:17 +0000
          Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-14 23:24 +0000
          Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-15 15:38 +0000
            Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-15 15:52 +0000
              Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-15 19:19 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-16 00:03 +0100
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-15 23:14 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-19 13:50 +0100
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-15 23:26 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-16 11:51 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-19 14:10 +0100
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-19 20:36 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 15:55 -0800
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-01-16 17:01 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-16 19:07 +0000

csiph-web