>> > rsync is significantly faster in my experience as well. Its extremely > useful when only a few files need to be updated. I often use it to > update a html page based site as per requirement from a local copy. > When using a usb hdd all methods are limited to the read speed.
The point of the usb hdd example was to demonstrate that rsync is slower because it requires excessive hdd i/o. Obviously if you resume transferring a file (which rsync allows after generating hashes) it will take less time. Midnight commander allows you to resume as well as far as I remember. Of course, if there are changes within the file (not file size difference) then rsync is the tool for you. Just my 2 cents, Sharad -- LUG@IITD - http://tinyurl.com/ycueutm
