Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches

2010-09-02 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
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

Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches

2010-09-02 Thread Alexander Best
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

Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches

2010-09-02 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
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 ___

Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches

2010-09-02 Thread Alexander Best
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

Re: /stand/camcontrol

2010-09-02 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
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

Re: /stand/camcontrol

2010-09-02 Thread Xin LI
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

Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches

2010-09-02 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
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

Re: Support for WD Advanced Format disks

2010-09-02 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
"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

Re: /stand/camcontrol

2010-09-02 Thread 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 /stand, not /rescue; /rescue has a full cam