many clients do not care about multiplying complexity by 2 or
5, even if the speedup rate is only multiplied by 1.1.
Olivier
___
Olivier Lachambre
2, rue Roger Courtois
25 200 MONTBELIARD
FRANCE
e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mail
out network traffic, so between
1.5 & 2 times more efficient is just: "extremement excitant".
The main goal of rsync is to spare bandwidth utilisation, I
guess my definition for efficiency is quite the good one
(I know what a very slow link is).
I didn't care about CPU, disks IO (a
gt;algorithm (see 'Smaller Signatures' in chapter 4). That changes the
>calculation of optimal block size quite a bit.
I think this is the main reason for such results in my test.
Thanks for answering my question.
Amicalement,
Olivier
P.S. Maybe one day all this will be availa
ced a certain number of files (10? 100?) we always use the same
size which is supposed to be the best one.
Sorry I'm too long, hope you'll understand everything,
Olivier
P.S. I am not a programmer of any kind so don't wait for me to write any
line of C (I know I'm a bad boy
