| 5gb - 32k | 2m24.716s | 2m25.723s | 2m24.012s |
| 5gb - 64k | 2m23.235s | 2m25.939s | |
| 5gb - 128k | 2m18.724s |
| 11gb - 32k | 5m48.613s | 5m50.557s | 5m55.207s |
| 11gb - 128k | 5m38.264s | 5m29.513s | 5m38.922s |
| 15.5gb 128k | 9m31.711s | 7m45.154s | 9m32.641s |
Beefy server with SAN storage
| 14gb - 64k | 2m16.941s | 2m40.087s | 2m30.454s |
| 14gb - 128k | 2m14.720s | 2m22.201s | 2m26.875s |
We roughly judge the penalty for failure at about 40 minutes and discard the home server results. The script penalty is about 2 and a half minutes of time and suppose the payoff is a failure rate of 0%. So I interpret loosely this to mean that, if the edit in place script fails more than once out of every sixteen runs, it is not worth running. If it fails less than once out of every sixteen runs, it is worth the risk of damaging the file, and having to redo everything.
14gb is a good estimate for how large these files will be, but when they become smaller it looks very risky to make the edit in place since the savings become smaller and the time penalty will not decrease proportionally.
In reply to Re^4: In place editing without reading further
by trippledubs
in thread In place editing without reading further
by trippledubs
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |