ropers wrote:
Would people say that this edit is a decent description of these issues?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparse_file&diff=170645177&oldid=168346326
I can't really comment well for proper writing for sure. (;>
But one thing that is not right as Otto pointed out to me and that my
tests showed just to well. The size of the files size doesn't changed.
The transfer data however is different depending of what utility or
options you use to transfer it. That part I didn't express it properly
in my previous emails and Otto kindly corrected it as well. In some
cases it might be good to have the capability to compact it. meaning
making it none sparse again, but I can't put a good judgment as to if
that would be good in most cases, witch I am sure it's not the case for
many, specially for database files for example come to mind.
I guess what I can conclude with is in some cases there is substantial
waist of bandwidth (depend on utility use for sync), CPU resources, way
more time consume in the sync process as well, ( in my example case, up
to 50+ minutes instead of possible < 2 minutes) and possible sync
process that will break, or stop if sparse are getting to big. But
that's a case by case obviously. No rules that I can think of right now.
And the last point I have to include is that may be in some cases you
can't even do it, or it will stop doing it when you expect it less. (;>
Best,
Daniel
