On 05.03.2006 09:26, Uno Engborg wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 10:34 +0100, shrek-m(a)gmx.de wrote:
>
>> On 03.03.2006 09:12, Mike Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default
>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max
>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_default
>>> echo 256960 >> /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_max
>>> echo 0 >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps
>>> echo 1 >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_sack
>>> echo 1 >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_window_scaling
>>
>> why ">>" ?
>> imho this should be ">"
>
> For me it works with either syntax, but AFAIK the > is the best (and
> most universal) choice
> is not more universal than >>. The difference is that >> appends to
an existing file
while > starts writing the file from the beginning. So if the file you
are >:ing to contains
lines you want to keep they will be gone if you do >.
i know this since m$-dos 2.x
this is the reason why i am surprised that it does not look like this
after the bad example. eg.
---- not ----
# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps
1
0
--------
it seems that this is not valid in the proc-filesystem.
well, for good reasons.
---- test ----
# cat test
cat: test: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
# echo "0" >> test ; cat test
0
# echo "1" >> test ; cat test
0
1
# echo "1" > test ; cat test
1
--------
--
shrek-m