On 10/4/06, Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 15:12 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is bad. If you mount the drive you may as well use cp or copy or > xcopy. The real strength of rsync is its extremely low level of > network traffic to sync the data. To do this rsync does checksums on > the data so if you run it over a mounted volume it will read all of > the date across the wire. Rsync runs best when there are two > instances of rsync running, one on each machine to be synchronized. > This way only checksums are passed over the wire before any data is > copied. I've heard this before, but I don't think it's true, based on my experience. I can rsync between two disks physically in my system and it doesn't read much data at all off the local disk except to copy new files. If what you're saying is true about how rsync works, then it wouldn't work at all for local rsyncs (wouldn't save time). I think rsync only checksums if it has to. Could someone who is an rsync expert clarify this for me?
Man page indicates that rsync uses file size and mod-time by default. Force checksums instead with -c. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
