On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Paul Slootman wrote:
Do note that disabling the incremental recursion will impact the performance, esp. with a large number of files.
I did some tests (I am becoming the OSX rsync_3 benchmark guy!) and for 15GB Home folder, there was only a slight difference in performance but see that could grow considerably with larger numbers. Without incremental recursion, the initial file count seems to take forever, though it catches up a bit after that. The incremental backups are almost the same in speed at this size. The one option, I mentioned before, that does seem to affect performance is the osx- creation-dates patch. Oddly, it is much slower for the incremental backup scans (2+ times) than for the initial full copy, proportionally.
I think I leave the --no-i-r- option as an option since I now include a text field for roll-your-own options in the UI. Half of the people want these things decided for them in the code but a lot have asked if rsync could do this or that, so now everyone can be happy. Me too.
As for the UI progress bar with the recursion, I will represent the # of files copied per increment count and leave out any mention of size copied (since that was always just an extrapolation for # of files.) That will give a true idea of what rsync is really doing. And maybe I can fool the progress bar into slowing down the initial race forward.
Thanks, Rob Dutoit -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
