measuring 2.6.1 improvements

[Wayne Davison]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:52:11AM -0600, Eric Whiting wrote:
> ... but here is some representative data:

Thanks for the confirming stats.  Some questions/comments:

You didn't mention what command you ran, so I'm curious if the 18M jump
at the end was due to using --delete-after?  (The way the delete options
are written uses a lot of memory for large file sets.)

The per-file memory improvement is probably the bulk of what you saw in
your test.  If you want to see an even larger improvement, compare the
use of the -H option (--hard-link) between versions (and note how much
less data is sent over the wire too).

I'm curious if you noticed an improvement in shared memory on the
receiving side staying shared (that is, if your fork() uses copy-
on-write shared memory in the first place).

..wayne..