| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:37:25PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> It has come to my attention that, during recent weeks, a small number of |
| 3 |
> users have been complaining recently about the size of the rsync tree. |
| 4 |
> My august colleagues have proposed many ingenious solutions, but |
| 5 |
> misfortunately they are all complicated and involve a lot of manual |
| 6 |
> work. I believe the following small changes (which can mostly be |
| 7 |
> automated) would prove of much larger benefit to the community for a |
| 8 |
> vastly reduced cost. |
| 9 |
[snip to a wonderfully worded set of satirical suggestions] |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
For real benefits, reducing the number of files, or using a filesystem |
| 12 |
that performs tail packing reduces the amount of disk seek that must be |
| 13 |
done, really increases performance given the number of small files. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 17 |
E-Mail : robbat2@××××××××××××××.net |
| 18 |
Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 |
| 19 |
ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 |
| 20 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives