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?

On 18/03/2008, David V. <davidv.net@gmail.com> wrote:
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. <davidv.net@gmail.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 <julian.paceross@gmail.com> 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?

Thanks
Julian


On 18/03/2008, Shachar Shemesh <shachar@shemesh.biz> wrote:
Julian wrote:

>
>     David:
>
>     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.


Shachar