On 05/24/2014 05:21 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote:
On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again.
What do you think?
+1
Significant enough to bump up I think,
and
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote:
On 05/24/2014 05:21 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote:
On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once
On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again.
What do you think?
+1
Significant enough to bump up I think,
and we never saw regressions with this size.
Please amend the date etc. at the top of the comment too.
Here are the results
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote:
On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again.
What do you think?
+1
Significant enough to bump up I think,
and we never saw regressions with this size.
It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again.
What do you think?
0001-cat-cp-split-use-a-larger-buffer-for-copying.patch
Description: Binary data
