You're right david.
I used Visual Studio 2005 to compile, whilst I remember Shachar mentioning he usually uses VC6 iirc.
Plus I have the stlport libraries actually compiled locally.
Not sure which the actual reason is, but I haven't noticed any performance issues at all. Let me know if you notice any difference.
Maybe Shachar has any idea?
Julian is it normal that your exe is much bigger than the non modified rsyncrypto ?Yours is 304 Ko and the non modified one is 184 Ko.David V.On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 6:55 PM, David V. <email@example.com> wrote:
Julian Thank you VERY MUCH !Sachar when do you think we can expect this to be included in the "official" rsyncrypto ?David V.On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Julian <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Of course! Please find attached
I'm just not sure how to create the standard "patch" file, but if you see the attached text file, its just an addition of 3 lines.
For windows, I am attaching the exe, but renaming to rsyncrypto.ex_ since most mail filters will reject an exe attachment.
Once I'm here, I just wanted to add an observation after running a couple of tests with a mixture of large and small files:
With nullgzip, a significant decrease in CPU usage is observed, but the duration of the whole operation is exactly the same.
Is this what is to be expected?
On 18/03/2008, Shachar Shemesh <email@example.com> wrote:Julian wrote:
> if you need the recompiled exe before Shachar releases the next
> version, I could send it to you.
> (PS Assuming you're using windows, otherwise i'll send you the patch)
Do feel free to send it to the list, though.