Re: Compressed backup

2002-06-01 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 05:18:42PM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:46:37PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:

Re: Compressed backup

2002-06-01 Thread jw schultz
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:46:37PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > [...] > > When i said "content-aware

Testing a transfer-only rsync tool

2002-06-01 Thread Wayne Davison
I found some time in the past week to work on a simple test app that would hopefully help to answer a few questions that came up recently: 1. Can a single-process generator+receiver work well? (Looks good so far, but I haven't run any multi-processor timing tests yet.) 2. How easy is it to u

Re: Compressed backup

2002-06-01 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote: [...] > When i said "content-aware compressor" what i meant was > that the compressor would actually analiz

Re: Compressed backup

2002-06-01 Thread jw schultz
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:45:43AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:35:05PM -0700, jw schultz wrote: [...] > > > I don't think it is possib

Re: Compressed backup

2002-06-01 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:45:43AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:35:05PM -0700, jw schultz wrote: [...] > > I would guess that the number of changes meeting this criteria would be > > almost non-existant. I