Performance testing w BackupExec, comments requested.

David Collier-Brown David.Collier-Brown at Sun.COM
Wed Jan 25 21:14:11 GMT 2006

Jeremy wrote:
>>>The uname(2) system call conforms to SVr4, SVID, POSIX, and X/OPEN but is not
>>>available in BSD4.3.  If this call exists (configure test) and the "sysname"
>>>field is "Linux" and the "release" field, parsed from a string like
>>>2.6.8-2-686, shows the release to be greater than 2.6.15, then enable else

Steve Langasek wrote:
>>Ugh. That's *horrible* :-). Tempting though.... :-).
>>No, this really is something vendors should address (IMHO).

   Sun tries (;-)) We like to make the linker do this checking,
actually. Interfaces have hidden numbers indicating what standard
they're from, like SISCD_2.3 and SYSVABI_1.3 or SUNW_1.1
If sendfile wasn't in the standard libs, you'd be linked
to a software emulation, thusly:

froggy> pvs -s /usr/lib/ | more (SUNWprivate_1.1);

   Macs sued to have something similar.
   If linux has this kind of low-level numbers in the ELF files,
we could just test for a new enough sendfile. Anyone know
Linux ELF well?


> Well, as Lawrence's vendor, the only way Debian would be addressing this
> would be by adding the uname check, so that we don't have to force the user
> to upgrade the kernel before installing a samba update...

David Collier-Brown,      | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at     |                      -- Mark Twain
(416) 263-5733 (x65733)   |

More information about the samba-technical mailing list