Why is multi's rsync file so large?
Am I doing something wrong with my rsycn?
I'm thinking that multi should be, at most, the sum of the parts of the other lists... In fact, it should really probably should be **smaller** than the sum of its parts because of MUCH overlapping data getting consolidated in multi.
01/10/2007 02:03 PM 8,883 ab.surbl.org.rbldnsd 12/23/2006 11:53 AM 101,506 be.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:12 PM 5,760,311 jp.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:19 PM 75,027,410 multi.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:11 PM 6,826,763 ob.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 01:48 PM 330,910 ph.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:11 PM 1,435,961 sc.surbl.org.rbldnsd 07/09/2006 10:44 PM 0 sc2.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 01:03 PM 5,905,033 ws.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/08/2007 03:44 AM 810 xs.surbl.org.rbldnsd 10 File(s) 95,397,587 bytes 0 Dir(s) 105,311,490,048 bytes free
...and some of these lists are no longer used in multi (or never were to begin with). Given the size of the component parts, shouldn't the multi file be somewhere around 10-20 MBs?
Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob@PowerViewSystems.com
Hi!
Why is multi's rsync file so large?
Am I doing something wrong with my rsycn?
Uh no?
01/10/2007 01:03 PM 5,905,033 ws.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/08/2007 03:44 AM 810 xs.surbl.org.rbldnsd 10 File(s) 95,397,587 bytes 0 Dir(s) 105,311,490,048 bytes free
...and some of these lists are no longer used in multi (or never were to begin with). Given the size of the component parts, shouldn't the multi file be somewhere around 10-20 MBs?
Just look inside the file and you will see? Since multi used shared lists each comment line is added for each host seperately and not like the seperate lists one comment field for all.
Bye, Raymond.
On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 11:31:31 AM, Rob Systems) wrote:
Why is multi's rsync file so large?
Am I doing something wrong with my rsycn?
I'm thinking that multi should be, at most, the sum of the parts of the other lists... In fact, it should really probably should be **smaller** than the sum of its parts because of MUCH overlapping data getting consolidated in multi.
01/10/2007 02:03 PM 8,883 ab.surbl.org.rbldnsd 12/23/2006 11:53 AM 101,506 be.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:12 PM 5,760,311 jp.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:19 PM 75,027,410 multi.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:11 PM 6,826,763 ob.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 01:48 PM 330,910 ph.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:11 PM 1,435,961 sc.surbl.org.rbldnsd 07/09/2006 10:44 PM 0 sc2.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 01:03 PM 5,905,033 ws.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/08/2007 03:44 AM 810 xs.surbl.org.rbldnsd 10 File(s) 95,397,587 bytes 0 Dir(s) 105,311,490,048 bytes free
% wc *rbldnsd 554 594 8910 ab.surbl.org.rbldnsd 6381 6421 101506 be.surbl.org.rbldnsd 335873 335913 5760515 jp.surbl.org.rbldnsd 680033 5440234 75030223 multi.surbl.org.rbldnsd 407842 407882 6827183 ob.surbl.org.rbldnsd 19350 19390 330926 ph.surbl.org.rbldnsd 90971 91011 1436022 sc.surbl.org.rbldnsd 346642 346682 5905033 ws.surbl.org.rbldnsd 26 69 810 xs.surbl.org.rbldnsd 1887672 6648196 95401128 total
Looks about right to me. Would be nice if the files were smaller, but the number of records (lines) is consistent.
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
-
Jeff Chan -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn -
Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems)