On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Wayne Davison wrote:
> Rsync doesn't call sqrt -- it just does a simple little integer
> estimation. It is probable that using a hardware sqrt call would be
> faster than rsync's estimator, but taking only 0.0041 seconds per
> file instead of 0.0232 seconds per file(*
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:21:10PM -0600, Peter L. Wargo wrote:
> IIRC, the G5 has hardware sqrt.
Rsync doesn't call sqrt -- it just does a simple little integer
estimation. It is probable that using a hardware sqrt call would be
faster than rsync's estimator, but taking only 0.0041 seconds p
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Paul Slootman wrote:
> I don't think that the overhead of one sqrt() per file will make much
> difference either way...
It might over tens of thousands of files... :-)
-Pete
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting,
On Thu 22 Apr 2004, Peter L. Wargo wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Wayne Davison wrote:
>
> > * Per-file dynamic block size is now sqrt(file length). The
> Oooo... I need to go compile 2.6 on a G5 running OS X (unless somebody
> beat me to it). IIRC, the G5 has hardware sqrt. This could be q
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Wayne Davison wrote:
> * Per-file dynamic block size is now sqrt(file length). The
> per-file checksum size is determined according to an algorithm
> provided by Donovan Baarda which reduces the probability of rsync
> algorithm corrupting data and fallin
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:23:18AM -0400, Brian Cuttler wrote:
> I can't address the algoritm questions but I'll tell you that we
> had a tremendous improvement is speed when we switched to a newer
> version of rsync.
Yes, rsync 2.6.0 has some big improvements in the checksum processing
for large
I can't address the algoritm questions but I'll tell you that we
had a tremendous improvement is speed when we switched to a newer
version of rsync.
We are using it (in this case) to rsync our oracle files to a
separate partition on the system cpu.
> I'm using rsync to copy some large (>1GB) ora
I'm using rsync to copy some large (>1GB) oracle datafiles. I've noticed
that sometimes it transfers some of the files twice.
Some earlier posts to this list that I saw in the archives seemed to
indicate that this is a problem with the rsync algorithm itself when
dealing with large files. Some of
