Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-07-18 Thread Chris Shoemaker
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 (3

Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-07-17 Thread Wayne Davison
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,

Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-07-16 Thread Chris Shoemaker
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 s

Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-07-15 Thread Wayne Davison
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 t

Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-07-14 Thread Chris Shoemaker
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

RE: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-06-18 Thread Wallace Matthews
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 with

Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-06-17 Thread Craig Barratt
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 co

RE: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-06-17 Thread Wallace Matthews
ECTED] 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 > >

Re: [Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-06-16 Thread Chris Shoemaker
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 >

[Bug 1463] New: poor performance with large block size

2004-06-16 Thread samba-bugs
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 Compon