zlib/inflate.c:1528:61: warning: shifting a negative signed value is undefined
[-Wshift-negative-value]
if (strm == Z_NULL || strm->state == Z_NULL) return -1L << 16;
~~~ ^
Original Message
On 29 January 2018 1:23 AM,
+1
Original Message
On Sep 1, 2020, 10:44, Guillaume Bossu via rsync < rsync@lists.samba.org> wrote:
Hello,
First, thanks for your amazing job !
I used rsync on OSX on a 10Gbit network.
Now i move to 50Gbit network but rsync stay to a maximum transfert of 130 MB/s.
I believe
I updated the archive disk, it is a 4T WD Red SSD, now copying from the old
Seagate Exos. Speed is ridiculous: only 80GB copied overnight.
I need help here--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options:
Rsync 3.2.2 ransfer rate on my pet hardware is really poor, so every
improvement counts.
I noted that rsync writes a gmon file on the source path and leaves it there
when it terminates. When the source path is read-only, rsync complains that it
cannot write in it. For optimal use of the input
The obsd community is silent. There is a thread on misc@ but no participation.
Original Message
On 10 Aug 2020, 09:19, < pl...@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> ... I see this ball bounched betwen rsync, openbsd and supermicro
> ... I see a large cache delivered
Original Message
On 7 Aug 2020, 23:44, Wayne Davison < wa...@opencoder.net> wrote:
>> Also, I have 12GB of cache in ecc ram that rsync is not using.
>It uses whatever memory it needs plus whatever filesystem caching your OS
>provides.
Hmmm... bad day today...
No, it is not
wrote:
Rupert Gallagher via rsync wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2020, 23:44, Wayne Davison < wa...@opencoder.net> wrote:
>
> >> Also, I have 12GB of cache in ecc ram that rsync is not using.
>
> >It uses whatever memory it needs plus whatever filesystem caching
> >y
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday 28 June 2020 21:09, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > > Complete rsync commandline?
> >
> > /usr/local/bin/rsync --recursive --links --times --modify-window=1
> > --devices --specials --update --owner --group --perms --delete
> > --delete-before
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday 28 June 2020 21:29, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> On 28.06.2020 16:46, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>
> > ? Original Message ?
> > On Sunday 28 June 2020 13:58, Matthias Schniedermeyer m...@citd.de wrote:
> >
Hello,
As disks are slow and rsync reads and writes so much that for the bus this is
the equivalent of context switching galore, would it be possible to use RAM as
a buffer? Say, you have 10GB of spare RAM, rsync uses the bus to its peak for
reading 10GB, then again for writing it down. This
On Friday 26 June 2020 21:58, Rupert Gallagher via rsync
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As disks are slow and rsync reads and writes so much that for the bus this is
> the equivalent of context switching galore, would it be possible to use RAM
> as a buffer? Say, you have 10GB of spare
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday 28 June 2020 13:58, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> On 27.06.2020 11:22, Rupert Gallagher via rsync wrote:
>
> > On Friday 26 June 2020 21:58, Rupert Gallagher via rsync
> > rsync@lists.samba.org wrote:
> >
> > &g
The disk is brand new.
Original Message
On 30 Jul 2020, 16:00, Karl O. Pinc < k...@meme.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:55:00 +
Rupert Gallagher via rsync wrote:
> I updated the archive disk, it is a 4T WD Red SSD, now copying from
> the old Seagate
I would not refer to it as consumer: it costs 670 eur, it is specifically
designed for nas, ans it comes with a 5 years warrantee.
Original Message
On 30 Jul 2020, 16:00, Karl O. Pinc < k...@meme.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:55:00 +
Rupert Gallagher via rsync
If you look at my previous exchange in the list, I raised the need for more ram
usage via a tool option. In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a
buffer would have cut down backup time to minutes instead of days. At the time,
my proposal was dismissed by someone saying that rsync
Original Message
On Oct 2, 2021, 15:04, Jindřich Makovička < makov...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just note this patch has nothing to do with memory consumption vs performance.
It just avoids allocating memory that was left unused anyway.
I can read--
Please use reply-all for most
Original Message
On Oct 2, 2021, 12:36, < devz...@web.de> wrote:
>>In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a buffer would have cut
>>down backup time to minutes instead of days.
>could you give an example where rsync is slowing things down so much due to
>ram
17 matches
Mail list logo
