On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:54:31AM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:20:51PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:06:28PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
+ max_map_size = MIN(MAX_MAP_SIZE, blength * 32);
This makes max_map_size a multiple (32) of
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:20:51PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:06:28PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
+ max_map_size = MIN(MAX_MAP_SIZE, blength * 32);
This makes max_map_size a multiple (32) of blength
for a large range (blength*32 MAX_MAP_SIZE),
Oops, that
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:06:28PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:27:45PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
My initial reaction (having not actually read the code) is that it would
be desirable make the window_size highly composite, and then ensure that
the block size is
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:27:45PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
My initial reaction (having not actually read the code) is that it would
be desirable make the window_size highly composite, and then ensure that
the block size is an integer factor of the window_size. In other words,
avoid the
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:47:57PM -0700, Craig Barratt wrote:
But, the comment seems to have been right on. I have re-run the
experiment with block sizes as small as 3000 (yes it took a long
time to complete) all the way up to block sizes of 10 with it
working in reasonable times.
I applied your patch and it has resolved the problem.
Thanks Craig
-Original Message-
From: Craig Barratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:48 PM
To: Wallace Matthews
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance
]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:21:15AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1463
Summary: poor
Wally writes:
I apologize to Craig. Chris is correct.
No problem.
I had been reading so many of Chris's highly intelligent e-mails...
Same here.
But, the comment seems to have been right on. I have re-run the
experiment with block sizes as small as 3000 (yes it took a long
time to
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1463
Summary: poor performance with large block size
Product: rsync
Version: 2.6.2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:21:15AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1463
Summary: poor performance with large block size
Product: rsync
Version: 2.6.2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: other
10 matches
Mail list logo