On 7/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand that it's a fairly low probability, and depends on some questionable configurations, but rsync is well-known to be both reliable and deterministic. I'd hate for something like this to start chipping away at that reputation, even if we -are- talking about a corner case in a performance optimization that might not get invoked all that much.
You needn't worry: there's no question in my mind that --checksum should continue to mean "read every file every time and calculate the checksum anew" for those who need to be 100% certain (modulo checksum collisions) that the file data is the same on both sides or suspect that something is wrong with the clock. However, for general use, a checksum cache is still considerably more robust than the current default size-and-mtime quick check, so I think rsync should offer it via a separate option (perhaps --cached-checksum). I believe that the administrator of an rsync daemon who doesn't want clients bogging it down unnecessarily should be able to configure it so that --checksum means --cached-checksum. If you don't like this, consider that clients have always gotten whatever data the administrator chooses to give them; by enabling this setting, the administrator is merely choosing to give them a slightly cached version of the data in the filesystem rather than the actual data. Compulsively honest daemon administrators could refuse --checksum instead. Matt -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
