Alexander Best writes:
> the current maximum buffer limit of fetch(1) actually is around 1G. i
> think 1M is not enough, because if people are pulling data over fast
> lines they'll have almost constant disk writes. how about 100M then?
> ;)
Large buffer sizes are *not* better, since fetch(1) wil
On Thu Sep 2 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Alexander Best writes:
> > so how about something like this? the fetch(1) manual would have to be
> > changed
> > a bit to state that if '-B val' > 1G it silently gets set to 1G.
>
> 1 GB is ridiculously large. 1 MB should be plenty.
the current m
Alexander Best writes:
> so how about something like this? the fetch(1) manual would have to be changed
> a bit to state that if '-B val' > 1G it silently gets set to 1G.
1 GB is ridiculously large. 1 MB should be plenty.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
On Thu Sep 2 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Alexander Best writes:
> > since you're the originator of fetch(1): should i send you a patch to add
> > expand_numer() to the -B switch or do you think fetch is better off as it is
> > now without humanised numbers?
>
> Sure, but we need to commit t
Xin LI writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > Xin LI writes:
> > > My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size
> > > for rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced
> > > to libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I
> > > feel that thi
2010/9/2 Dag-Erling Smørgrav :
> Xin LI writes:
>> My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size for
>> rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced to
>> libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I feel that
>> this can be gone.
>
> This is /st
Alexander Best writes:
> since you're the originator of fetch(1): should i send you a patch to add
> expand_numer() to the -B switch or do you think fetch is better off as it is
> now without humanised numbers?
Sure, but we need to commit the expand_number() patch first.
> i'm not sure, but i th
"Andresen, Jason R." writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > I see no reason why sector size should be a selection criterium. Just
> > buy the disk that gives you the best performance and / or capacity for
> > your money. WD Green disks are cheap, but other vendors offer models
> > with the s
Xin LI writes:
> My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size for
> rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced to
> libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I feel that
> this can be gone.
This is /stand, not /rescue; /rescue has a full cam
9 matches
Mail list logo