On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:16:01AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
And one final thought that occurred to me: it would also be possible
for the sender to segment a really large file into several chunks,
handling each one without overlap, all without the generator or the
receiver knowing that it
On 10/7/07, Wayne Davison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:16:01AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
And one final thought that occurred to me: it would also be possible
for the sender to segment a really large file into several chunks,
handling each one without overlap, all
Evan Harris wrote:
Would it make more sense just to make rsync pick a more sane blocksize
for very large files? I say that without knowing how rsync selects
the blocksize, but I'm assuming that if a 65k entry hash table is
getting overloaded, it must be using something way too small.
rsync
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:37:45AM -0600, Evan Harris wrote:
I've been playing with rsync and very large files approaching and
surpassing 100GB, and have found that rsync has excessively very poor
performance on these very large files, and the performance appears to
degrade the larger the
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Wayne Davison wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:37:45AM -0600, Evan Harris wrote:
I've been playing with rsync and very large files approaching and
surpassing 100GB, and have found that rsync has excessively very poor
performance on these very large files, and the
