sysctl vs. echo > /proc...

sysctl vs. echo > /proc...

[Taylor, Grant]

Hey fellow TuX users out there, I have a question for you.

Does any one know the (technical) difference in using sysctl verses echoing values in to the appropriate areas in side of the /proc file system?  Which is the more current (expected in the future) practice?  Any ideas and / or thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated.  Consider this very simple and common example:

sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1

verses 

echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward 



Grant. . . .

Re: sysctl vs. echo > /proc...

[Robert Vangel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1001 bytes --]

Taylor, Grant wrote:
> Hey fellow TuX users out there, I have a question for you.
> 
> Does any one know the (technical) difference in using sysctl verses 
> echoing values in to the appropriate areas in side of the /proc file 
> system?  Which is the more current (expected in the future) practice?  
> Any ideas and / or thoughts on this matter would be greatly 
> appreciated.  Consider this very simple and common example:
> 
> sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
> 
> verses
> echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> 
> 
> Grant. . . .
> 

I don't think there is any real different between the two methods. 
Really calling sysctl to do it is just another step when using echo 
would do it anyway.

On the other hand, if sysctl can be used to log anything so you can 
possibly reverse any changes may be an idea, but the only things I have 
ever changed (that I can think of) in /proc are ip_forward and 
tcp_conntrack_max, which have been with an echo and then editing 
/etc/sysctl.conf to match.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3166 bytes --]