>At the risk of boring other readers, I'm curious what numbers you were
>getting during your test - I just tried a --stats myself on a 51MB
rsync version = 2.4.4
Working with a 100MB file and doing a null sync, I see:
rsync --stats -e ssh -a --block-size=64000
says:
wrote 9866 bytes read 6659 bytes 158.13 bytes/sec
rsync --stats -e ssh -az --block-size=64000
says:
wrote 9866 bytes read 103 bytes 73.57 bytes/sec
Extrapolating to 20GB, I get almost exactly 2MB. It seems I slipped
an order of magnitude earlier which makes the need for implementing
the irsync algorithm a little weaker.
I would still like to see irsync implemented because it would reduce
network utilization significantly at the cost of maybe a bit more cpu
when there are few changes. It would also help when there are many
scattered changes because it avoids the fragmentation problems that
arise from having a constant blocksize.
-John
