On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:37:07AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That "100 bytes per file" is very approximate. It also increases quite > a lot if you use --delete and also increases if you use --hard-links.
The increase for --delete got greatly improved a while back (the delete scan used to at least double the size of the file list, but now only requires the memory size of the largest directory in the delete scan). Rsync doesn't attempt to be a really low-memory application for small transfers, but it does try to keep the per-file memory use as low as it can. One sad thing is that the forking of the second rsync process on the receiving side no longer shares the file-list memory between the two processes on 2.6.x versions of Linux (due to a move away from copy-on- write memory allocation in forks), so that doubles the size of the file- list on the receiving side. > Alternatively, talk to Wayne Davison about rsync 3.0. One of the core > things that brings is lower memory usage (essentially automating the > breakup into directory trees that I mentioned above). I wouldn't recommend deploying rsync 3 widely just yet. I'm going to be working on finalizing the release in the near future, but there is still a chance that protocol 30 (which is new for this release) may still need to be changed a bit before it is released. The program is stable enough that I use it for all my own rsync copying, but I also ensure that my installed versions get updated for new releases. ..wayne.. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
