After timing it, I found you're right. Would this still help for online storage though as most have much greater download bandwidth than upload. So it would basically download the file with your faster download speeds, compare, then upload the changes with your slower upload speeds.
_____________________________ Stephen Zemlicka Integrated Computer Technologies PH. 608-558-5926 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt McCutchen Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:51 PM To: Stephen Zemlicka Cc: rsync@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: Mapped Drive On 9/24/07, Stephen Zemlicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I got it (with the help of a friend). You can, in fact, rsync to a > mapped drive efficiently. You must include --no-whole-file. My 100MB file > only transferred a few MB using that method and it opened up with the > changes just fine. Now it works just like I want. It's not the quickest > but definitely quicker than uploading hundreds of MB for each database. Of course --no-whole-file will make rsync report a smaller number of "bytes sent", but is it actually reducing the amount of I/O to the mapped drive? If so, I find this really surprising. The one explanation I can think of is that the network filesystem has cached the file, so reading the basis file costs nothing and writing only the changed areas (due to --inplace) is a big saving. Is this the case? 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
