Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 65843 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jun 2003 12:19:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 65830 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2003 12:19:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bodewig.bost.de) (62.96.16.111) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Jun 2003 12:19:41 -0000 Received: (from bodewig@localhost) by bodewig.bost.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UCJfp15003; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:19:41 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to bodewig@apache.org using -f To: dev@ant.apache.org Subject: Re: About , , and buffer sizes References: From: Stefan Bodewig Date: 30 Jun 2003 14:19:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Dominique Devienne wrote: > I don't recall anybody noticing something like this. I didn't, that much is for sure. The buffer size comes at a cost (memory consumption), off course. And you'll only see an effect when you copy really large files. Giving control over the buffer size is fine with me, so people who know they'll gain something by increasing it can benefit from changing the size. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org