2015-01-05 15:12 GMT+01:00 sebb :
> On 5 January 2015 at 13:43, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2015-01-04, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>
>>> Most surprising to me is that it seems like the overhead of lots of
>>> small calls to RandomAccessFile.write seems to be a lot costlier than
>>> I thought it wo
On 5 January 2015 at 13:43, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2015-01-04, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
>> Most surprising to me is that it seems like the overhead of lots of
>> small calls to RandomAccessFile.write seems to be a lot costlier than
>> I thought it would be. It seems like consolidating to a
On 2015-01-04, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> Most surprising to me is that it seems like the overhead of lots of
> small calls to RandomAccessFile.write seems to be a lot costlier than
> I thought it would be. It seems like consolidating to a larger byte
> array before calling write is a *lot* faste
Great stuff !
> getBytesWritten vs getTotalBytesWritten - svn revision 1649322
>
> Maybe we should rename getBytesWritten to something like
> getBytesWrittenForLastEntry to make the difference more obvious?
I had hard time keeping those "written" counters correct - which you
found out :) I renam
On 2015-01-04, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> I'm just running all ITs again to be sure.
Tests run: 79, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
1,400.308 sec - in
org.apache.commons.compress.archivers.zip.Zip64SupportIT
Stefan
-
On 2015-01-04, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> Not entirely unsurprisingly this broken in r1648585. I'll try to
> understand it tonight
getBytesWritten vs getTotalBytesWritten - svn revision 1649322
Maybe we should rename getBytesWritten to something like
getBytesWrittenForLastEntry to make the diff
On 2015-01-04, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> Not entirely unsurprisingly this broken in r1648585. I'll try to
> understand it tonight
I might find time before that, not sure, but I'll have a look myself as
well.
It might be a good idea to run the zip and tar ITs in some continuous
build environmen
On 2015-01-04, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> I'll leave my box alone to run the whole suite of ZIP64 ITs (i.e. enable
> the run-zipit profile) and report back later.
Failed tests:
Zip64SupportIT.write100KFilesFile:305->withTemporaryArchive:2342
arrays first differed at element [8]; expected:<52> bu
Not entirely unsurprisingly this broken in r1648585. I'll try to
understand it tonight
Kristia
2015-01-04 11:37 GMT+01:00 Stefan Bodewig :
> On 2015-01-04, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>> I'll try to reproduce this as a unit test for compress later today,
>
> svn revision 1649312 - run via
>
> $ mvn
On 2015-01-04, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> I'll try to reproduce this as a unit test for compress later today,
svn revision 1649312 - run via
$ mvn test -Dtest=Zip64SupportIT#writeAndRead5GBOfZerosUsingZipFile
I'll leave my box alone to run the whole suite of ZIP64 ITs (i.e. enable
the run-zipit pr
Hi
building the compress antlib in Gump fails (and has been failing for a
few days but I didn't notice):
http://vmgump.apache.org/gump/public/antlibs-compress/compress-antlib-test/gump_work/build_antlibs-compress_compress-antlib-test.html
The test creates a ZIP with a single 5GB entry and then a
11 matches
Mail list logo
