On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 06:52:56PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > I do not think that it matters. I like to see things moving, and the > performance impact is null.
Another point is that this bloats the logs redirected to a file by 4 compared to the initial proposal. I am not sure that this helps much for anybody. > I do not think that it is a good idea, because Michael is thinking of adding > some throttling capability, which would be a very good thing, but which will > need something precise, so better use the precise stuff from the start. > Also, the per second stuff induces rounding effects at the beginning. Let's revisit that when the need shows up then. I'd rather have us start with a basic set of metrics which can be extended later on. > Hmmm. I like this information because I this is where I have expectations, > whereas I'm not sure whether 1234 seconds for 12.3 GB is good or bad, but I > know that 10 MB/s on my SSD is not very good. Well, with some progress generated once per second you are one substraction away to guess how much has been computed in the last N second... -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature