On 9 Sep 2003 "Jon Howell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually you can guess by looking at the allocated-blocks measure,
> > and use this to guess whether it's preallocated zeros or sparse,
> > which might be useful for backups. But there is no way around
> > reading the blocks.
> Sure. Bumm
> I'd want to be convinced that this was really enough cheaper than -z1 to
> justify the complexity.
Right; as I thought about it more, it's only interesting in a corner case.
If you have enough CPU cycles lying around (because you're bottlenecked on
the network, and your CPU isn't busy with other
On 26 Aug 2003 jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:28:12AM -0700, Jon Howell wrote:
> > I worked around the problem by adding -z to compress the stream
> > first(blocks of zeros compress remarkably well), and that made the
> > virtual disk image transfer go much fast
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:45:49PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:28:12AM -0700, Jon Howell wrote:
> > So I was transferring a 2GB virtual machine disk image image over a slow
> > wireless link. Of course I used --sparse, to keep the image small on the
> > destination end as
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:28:12AM -0700, Jon Howell wrote:
> So I was transferring a 2GB virtual machine disk image image over a slow
> wireless link. Of course I used --sparse, to keep the image small on the
> destination end as well as on the source end.
>
> Much to my surprise, I noticed that
