On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:20:51PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:06:28PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote: > > + max_map_size = MIN(MAX_MAP_SIZE, blength * 32); > > This makes max_map_size a multiple (32) of blength > for a large range (blength*32 < MAX_MAP_SIZE),
Oops, that was supposed to be MAX(), not MIN(), otherwise it doesn't help the problem of too-many memory moves for large block sizes. I'll go ahead and check that change in for now and look forward to your findings on improving the code. > ISTM, that the only reason to have the slight lag in window > advancement is you expected to frequently service requests where the > offset was decreasing just a little. I didn't see that happening > anywhere. Did I miss something? I think the only place where the calls might not advance are in the receiver where the map_ptr() calls can be to any block-size-multiple in the basis file. It seems strange to me to force a 256K read for every basis-file match, so maybe this is something else to look into optimizing. ..wayne.. -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html