[BusyBox] Re: updated count applet

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 16 October 2003 22:06, Manuel Novoa III wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Further simplification.  Still need to decide on unsigned long long
> counter.  Also, in one test, increasing the buffer to 16K significantly
> improved performance.
>
> Manuel

Way back in the dark ages (2.4.4 or so), I had a buffer size of 64k, but it 
was always returning 4k from the pipe read anyway.  But there's 8 zillion 
reasons why that might have been, I never really tried to track it down.

More recently, there was a discussion on linux-kernel saying that 4k (one 
page) is the optimal buffer size for this sort of thing, although that's 
in-kernel.  Add in syscall overhead and benchmarks are way better than 
speculation... :)

I still have a to-do list item to look at wget's progress meter code and see 
if there's anything in there that might be useful, but it's pretty far down 
on the to-list.  After translating bzip's compression side to C. :)

I still think unsigned long long counts as "large file support", but you've 
said you disagree...

Rob

(Off on a quest for caffiene.  Don't be sleep deprived without it!)