> -----Original Message----- > From: Derek Simkowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 2:14 PM > To: Craig Barratt > Cc: Terry Reed; Donovan Baarda; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Problem with checksum failing on large files > > > > My theory is that this is expected behavior given the check > sum size. > > Craig, > Excellent analysis! > > Assuming your hypothesis is correct, I like the > adaptive checksum idea. But how much extra processor > overhead is there with a larger checksum bit size? Is it > worth the extra code and testing to use an adaptive algorithm? > > I'd be more inclined to say "This ain't the 90's > anymore", realize that overall filesizes have increased (MP3, > MS-Office, CD-R .iso, and DV) and that people are moving from > dialup to DSL/Cable, and then make either the default (a) > initial checksum size, or (b) block size, a bit larger. > > Terry, can you try his test (and also the -c option) > and post results? >
I tried "--block-size=4096" & "-c --block-size=4096" on 2 files (2.35 GB & 2.71 GB) & still had the same problem - rsync still needed to do a second pass to successfully complete. These tests were between Solaris client & AIX server (both running rsync 2.5.5). As I mentioned in a previous note, a 900 MB file worked fine with just "-c" (but required "-c" to work on the first pass). I'm willing to try the "fixed md4sum implementation", what do I need for this? I cannot try these tests on a Win32 machine because Cygwin does not support files > 2 GB & I could only find rsync as part of Cygwin. I don't have the time nor the patience to try to get rsync to compile using MS VC++ :-) Is there a Win32 version of rsync with large file support available? I do not have any Linux boxes available to test large files. Thanks. -- Terry -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html