Add support for user specified blocksize and increase default to 8192 #3
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Can you please merge this PR? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Module is very useful, thanks! I found myself wanting better performance. For larger files increasing block-size significantly improves performance. Adding command line flag and parameter let's users specify block-size without rebuilding code. I found no measurable performance hit using 8K reads of 4k files (read just returns amount read); however larger block-size on large files significantly improved performance. Most modern drives drive prefetch in larger blocks (SSD) and filesystems often define larger block-sizes. I am less wedded to the default size change, than I am adding the command line option.