From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Jason Molenda Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: ftp mirrors Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <3942E532.5D17574@cygnus.com> References: <200006091545.LAA00938.cygnus.project.sourcemaster@envy.delorie.com> <3941CC03.B74B3373@cygnus.com> <20000610010132.A20997@shell17.ba.best.com> <394223B7.A1A849E9@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00635.html Jason Molenda wrote: > ?? Rsync recognizes blocks of data. It doesn't interpret the > syntax of a .c file, run an SGML parser on an .html file, or try > to parse the English sentences in a .txt file. A block of random > data and a block of human-readable data are little different to > rsync. Given two nightly snapshots there are very few differences. Once the tar ball has gone through gzip, however, all similarity is lost. Its a lot more efficient to rsync the uncompressed tar-ball than it is to down load the compressed version (well it is for me :-). > Are you making this all up on your own - assuming that there is a > problem - or is there some actual evidence of a problem? I don't > mean to be harsh, but I seem to be engaged in an intellectual > discussion of the tone "I bet rsync is slow doing foo and we should > change how we do things. Someone should prove to me otherwise." Not so much a problem of ``rsync is slow'' but rather, is there a better way. One issue raised by individual testers during the gdb 5.0 release process was the logistics of repeatedly draging down 10mb tar-balls. Next time around I'll have the un-compressed tar ball available. It occures to me that this could be scaled :-) enjoy, Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Jason Molenda Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: ftp mirrors Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3942E532.5D17574@cygnus.com> References: <200006091545.LAA00938.cygnus.project.sourcemaster@envy.delorie.com> <3941CC03.B74B3373@cygnus.com> <20000610010132.A20997@shell17.ba.best.com> <394223B7.A1A849E9@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q2/msg00328.html Message-ID: <20000610180300.e8yg4mCXS-A_nuygfwuA88FK3kiV02IVOGFGl4s_2hk@z> Jason Molenda wrote: > ?? Rsync recognizes blocks of data. It doesn't interpret the > syntax of a .c file, run an SGML parser on an .html file, or try > to parse the English sentences in a .txt file. A block of random > data and a block of human-readable data are little different to > rsync. Given two nightly snapshots there are very few differences. Once the tar ball has gone through gzip, however, all similarity is lost. Its a lot more efficient to rsync the uncompressed tar-ball than it is to down load the compressed version (well it is for me :-). > Are you making this all up on your own - assuming that there is a > problem - or is there some actual evidence of a problem? I don't > mean to be harsh, but I seem to be engaged in an intellectual > discussion of the tone "I bet rsync is slow doing foo and we should > change how we do things. Someone should prove to me otherwise." Not so much a problem of ``rsync is slow'' but rather, is there a better way. One issue raised by individual testers during the gdb 5.0 release process was the logistics of repeatedly draging down 10mb tar-balls. Next time around I'll have the un-compressed tar ball available. It occures to me that this could be scaled :-) enjoy, Andrew