On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 11:06:30AM +0200, Olivier Lachambre wrote:
> At 09:19 01/07/2002 +1000, you wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >This relies on optimal block size being related for a set of files. I'm not
> >sure that this heuristic actually applies, and I don't know how much benefit
> >this would buy fo
At 09:19 01/07/2002 +1000, you wrote:
>[...]
>This relies on optimal block size being related for a set of files. I'm not
>sure that this heuristic actually applies, and I don't know how much benefit
>this would buy for all the complexity it would add.
>
I think that many clients do not care abo
At 17:45 30/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I dislike flaming and i don't intend my comments as flame
>but you have made some statements that at face value are
>problematic. Perhaps you could correct my misunderstanding.
[...]
>> Well, the first comment: during my work, I wanted to verify that th
At 17:09 30/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Olivier,
>
>> Well, the first comment: during my work, I wanted to verify that the
>> theorical optimal block size sqrt(24*n/Q) given by Andrew Tridgell in his
>> PHd Thesis was actually the good one, and when doing the tests on randomly
>> generated & modi
I dislike flaming and i don't intend my comments as flame
but you have made some statements that at face value are
problematic. Perhaps you could correct my misunderstanding.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 06:23:10PM +0200, Olivier Lachambre wrote:
> Hello,
> Another French student in the rsync maili
> I believe that the compression option turns on compression of transfered
> data, including file lists, instruction streams etc. Even with compression
> turned off, the miss data in the delta is still compressed.
nope!
Compression only compresses file data, not file lists etc. The file
lists a
Olivier,
> Well, the first comment: during my work, I wanted to verify that the
> theorical optimal block size sqrt(24*n/Q) given by Andrew Tridgell in his
> PHd Thesis was actually the good one, and when doing the tests on randomly
> generated & modified files I discovered that the size sqrt(7
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 06:23:10PM +0200, Olivier Lachambre wrote:
[...]
> Well, the first comment: during my work, I wanted to verify that the
> theorical optimal block size sqrt(24*n/Q) given by Andrew Tridgell in his
> PHd Thesis was actually the good one, and when doing the tests on randomly
(I previously wrote)
> So your 30MB file ought to be using 16K blocks
Whoops - my fault for assuming 30MB was large enough and skipping the
calculations. Turns out that really only yields about a 3K block size
with the adaptive algorithm. So you can get significant reduction in
blocks by using
Thomas Lambert [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> What is the default block size? I have a few files 30+mb and data
> is just added to the end of them. It seems like it takes longer to
> sync them that it was to send it initially. Should I change the
> block size or something else?
The default is
10 matches
Mail list logo
