search

junneyang / zumastor

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/zumastor
0 stars 1 forks source link

Provide option to skip compression during replication #74

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hosts that are network close likely do not need compression for replication. 
An example is our test cluster, where two machines are on the same desk,
connected to the same gigabit switch. Network saturation is under 1MBps, as
the master spends most of its CPU cycles (>50%) compressing data for
transmission.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by williama...@gmail.com on 13 Feb 2008 at 10:28

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Will, can you do this in time for 0.7?
Also please file another bug for "replication bloody slow with compression".  We
should be getting 30Mbps with compression, says Dan P.

Original comment by daniel.r...@gmail.com on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Will had a patch, but it needs some work still, so deferring.

Original comment by daniel.r...@gmail.com on 6 Mar 2008 at 6:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This should work.

Original comment by williama...@gmail.com on 14 Apr 2008 at 9:40

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
@@ -610,12 +615,13 @@
 }

 function define_target {
-   [[ $# -eq 4 ]] || [[ $# -eq 5 ]] || { echo "$0: wrong argument count ($#: $@) 
in
call: ${FUNCNAME[@]}"; exit 1; }
+   [[ $# -eq 4 ]] || [[ $# -eq 6 ]] || { echo "$0: wrong argument count ($#: $@) 
in
call: ${FUNCNAME[@]}"; exit 1; }

I think this should be [ $# -eq 5 ]] || [[ $# -eq 6 ]] || ...

Other than this, lgtm.

Jiaying

Original comment by jiayin...@gmail.com on 15 Apr 2008 at 1:09

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by williama...@gmail.com on 15 Apr 2008 at 3:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
will, did you apply your patch? This issue is marked as "fixed" but I'm using
zumastor 0.8-r1523m and it looks like the patch has not been applied :-?

Original comment by pgqui...@gmail.com on 16 Apr 2008 at 9:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This was fixed in revision 1535

Original comment by williama...@gmail.com on 16 Apr 2008 at 5:09