https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
--- Comment #8 from Chip Schweiss c...@innovates.com ---
I would argue that optionally all directory scanning should be made parallel.
Modern file systems perform best when request queues are kept full. The
current mode of rsync scanning
I dont understand - scanning metadata is sped up by thrashing the head
all over the disk instead of mostly-sequentially scanning through?
How does that work out?
/kc
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:37:21PM +, samba-b...@samba.org said:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
---
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
--- Comment #7 from Rainer rai...@voigt-home.net ---
Hi,
I'm experiencing the very same problem: I'm trying to sync a set of VMWare disk
files (about 2.5TB) with not too many changes, and direct copying is still
faster than the checksumming by a
9:51 AM
To: samba-b...@samba.org
Cc: rsync...@samba.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 3099] Please parallelize filesystem scan
I dont understand - scanning metadata is sped up by thrashing the head
all over the disk instead of mostly-sequentially scanning through?
How does that work out
Ken, this just happens to be a special case where your configuration has a
huge number of spindles. If you have multiple threads reading the same
spindle you'll just be thrashing the heads back forth. If there is one
thread reading at the front of the disk and another thread reading at the
end
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
--- Comment #6 from Arie Skliarouk sklia...@gmail.com 2013-02-10 06:45:30 UTC
---
Any hope for the bug to be resolved? It is really inconvenient to have
production database to be down for double amount of time than what is really
necessary.
--
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 09:32:44PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 04:23:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-15 16:23 ---
Created an
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #1448 is|0 |1
obsolete|
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-15 13:49 ---
Pardon me for being dense, but how could it possibly require a change to the
rsync protocol for the second host in the sequence to pre-scan its filesystem,
so that that
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-15 16:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=1448)
-- (https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=1448action=view)
One possible way to reorder the checksum computation.
how could it
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 04:23:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3099
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-15 16:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=1448)
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
