On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:35:44AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Sat 05 Mar 2011, hanj wrote: > > > I did this and here is a partial output of some of the files: > > > > cd+++++++++ home/hanj/.audacious/.thumbs/ > > >f+++++++++ home/hanj/.audacious/.thumbs/Classic.png > > > The files on the actual server: > > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 hanj users 240 Apr 6 2007 . > > -rw-r--r-- 1 hanj users 1515 Apr 6 2007 Classic.png > > > Here is a view of the first image on the backup server in the same > > directory: > > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 back users 240 Apr 6 2007 . > > -rw-r--r-- 28 back users 1515 Apr 6 2007 Default.png > > The owner is (has become?) different. Hence dirvish needs to retransmit > those files as the metadata is different.
But if the contents has not changed, the actual transmittal should be nothing by a few bytes of directory data here and there. In this case, I would expect (hope!) that the update would run very fast. I do see this as a problem though... does he end up with a (locally copied) version of the file instead of a hard link? Seems a bit on the assinine side to duplicate say, an unchanged 100GB iso image, just because the user 'touch'd, chmod'ed or chown'ed it. Really a rather serious waste of resources. _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
