On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:58:13PM -0800, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
* Package name: duff
* URL : http://duff.sourceforge.net/
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 09:56 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
If there aren't warnings about use of SHA1 in the tool, there should
be. While I don't recall
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:58:13PM -0800, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
* Package name: duff
* URL : http://duff.sourceforge.net/
A quick speed comparison:
real user system max RSS elapsed cmd
(s) (s) (s)(KiB) (s)
Lars Wirzenius, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 09:12:58 +, a écrit :
real user system max RSS elapsed cmd
(s) (s) (s)(KiB) (s)
3.2 2.4 5.862784 5.8 hardlink --dry-run files /dev/null
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Lars Wirzenius, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 09:12:58 +, a écrit :
real user system max RSS elapsed cmd
(s) (s) (s)(KiB) (s)
3.2 2.4
Lars Wirzenius, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 10:45:20 +, a écrit :
Personally, I would be wary of using checksums for file comparisons,
since comparing files byte-by-byte isn't slow (you only need to
do it to files that are identical in size, and you need to read
all the files anyway).
Lars Wirzenius, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 10:45:20 +, a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Lars Wirzenius, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 09:12:58 +, a écrit :
real user system max RSS elapsed cmd
(s) (s) (s)
Samuel Thibault, 2012-01-17 12:03:41 +0100 :
[...]
I'm not sure to understand what you mean exactly. If you have even
just a hundred files of the same size, you will need ten thousand file
comparisons!
I'm sure that can be optimised. Read all 100 files in parallel,
comparing blocks of
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 12:15:16 +0100, a écrit :
Lars Wirzenius, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 10:45:20 +, a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Lars Wirzenius, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 09:12:58 +, a écrit :
real user system max RSS elapsed
Roland Mas, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 13:41:23 +0100, a écrit :
Samuel Thibault, 2012-01-17 12:03:41 +0100 :
[...]
I'm not sure to understand what you mean exactly. If you have even
just a hundred files of the same size, you will need ten thousand file
comparisons!
I'm sure that can be
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:05:10PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Roland Mas, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 13:41:23 +0100, a écrit :
Samuel Thibault, 2012-01-17 12:03:41 +0100 :
[...]
I'm not sure to understand what you mean exactly. If you have even
just a hundred files of the same size,
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 17 Jan 2012 14:02:45 +0100, a écrit :
On my PhD work directory, with various stuff in it (500MiB, 18000 files,
big but also small files (svn/git checkouts etc)), everything being in
cache already (no disk I/O):
hardlink -t --dry-run . /dev/null 1,06s user 0,46s
Ah, right. So you'll start writing yet another tool? ;)
I've implemented pretty much that (http://liw.fi/dupfiles), but my
duplicate file finder is not so much better than existing ones in
Debian that I would inflict it on Debian. But the algorithm works
nicely, and works even for people
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 09:12:58AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
rdfind seems to be quickest one, but duff compares well with hardlink,
which (see http://liw.fi/dupfiles/) was the fastest one I knew of in
Debian so far.
Does anyone know of a duplicate file finder that can keep its
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kamal Mostafa ka...@whence.com
* Package name: duff
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Camilla Berglund elmindr...@elmindreda.org
* URL : http://duff.sourceforge.net/
* License : Zlib
Programming Lang: C
Description
Kamal Mostafa, le Mon 16 Jan 2012 12:58:13 -0800, a écrit :
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kamal Mostafa ka...@whence.com
* Package name: duff
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Camilla Berglund elmindr...@elmindreda.org
* URL :
Hi,
Samuel Thibault wrote:
* Package name: duff
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Camilla Berglund elmindr...@elmindreda.org
* URL : http://duff.sourceforge.net/
* License : Zlib
Programming Lang: C
Description : Duplicate file finder
What is it the benefit over fdupes, rdfind, ...?
..., hardlink, ...
finddup from perforate
Was thinking about packaging it myself already, so I may also sponsor
Kamal's package when it's ready.
You just listed the third duplicate (and me no. 4), and still go blind
right on ohoh, i sponsor
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 23:07 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
What is it the benefit over fdupes, rdfind, ...?
..., hardlink, ...
finddup from perforate
After a quick evaluation of the various find dupe files tools, I was
attracted to try duff because:
1. It looked easier to use than the others.
also sprach Kamal Mostafa ka...@debian.org [2012.01.17.0049 +0100]:
In my humble opinion, that would be an unreasonable pre-condition for
inclusion in Debian. Our standard for inclusion should not be that a
new package must be vastly better than other similar packages. That
would deny a new
19 matches
Mail list logo
