Pidentd v3 is a much improved version of the original Ident daemon both in terms of speed, code quality and features. Features include multithreading, a "configure" script, startup autodetection, much clearer/rewritten C code, doesn't run as root after startup, has a configuration file and can be started from /etc/inittab (on systems using a SysV init).
A modified version of the rwhod daemon as distributed by 4.3BSD once upon a time. Features include being able to send notification to a specific server (instead of broadcasting to everybody) and using network byte order for the files stored in /var/spool/rwho. It can also filter which hosts to listen to.
Parallel File Scanner is a multithreaded parallel file scanner that combines the functionality of find, xargs, and fgrep. It has the potential of being faster than find+xargs+fgrep on systems with multiple CPUs, multiple disks, and a good file system that supports parallel operations.
pxdmcp is a standalone XDMCP client that can be used to request a remote X Display Manager (such as XDM, GDM, or CDE Dtlogin) to take control and manage an X server display. This is essentially the same as what an X server does when started with the "-query" option, but using a standalone client can be useful in certain circumstances when you don't have complete control over how the X server is started.
Re: Piozone is just a name stealing piece of junk
(Perhaps Mr Capps should read the first sentence of the "Add comment" section. Especially the
part about "keep the discussions calm; don't flame and don't insult others."...)
Regarding the "iozone" / "piozone" name issue:
The name is not a "name grab thing" - it simply
stands for: "Parallel Input/Output disk ZONE tester". It is designed to test the
performance of hard disks and find out the
differing performance on different zones of the disk. And it is not uncommon to see different
projects with similar names so what's the big
(The Parallel och Output parts I haven't
released yet, but it is being worked on).
As for piozone being "junk and not useful for
anyone" - well... I'll let people decide for themself. It has been useful atleast for me
(and some other people) in checking the raw
performance of *disks* and *disk I/O subsystems*.
It does *not* test any kind of file system
performance - or I would have named it something
with "fs" in it (probably).
> How is pcopy better than, say, cp -a?
> Or rsync?
It isn't similar at all. cp and rsync copies files
and directories one by one - whereas pcopy
moves whole disks, partitions and filesystems
in one big chunk.