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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
>
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
>
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
10 matches
Mail list logo