Re: Any way to predict the amount of data to be copied when re-copying a file?

2009-11-29 Thread Eliot Moss 

I can't answer your question directly, but I can say that
it is not strictly the number of bytes that are different
that matters, but also how the differences are distributed
in the file.  Unless you explicitly set the block size,
rsync uses a size that is the sqrt of the size of the
file, thus bounding the worst case for the total volume
of data transmitted (block summaries *plus* block data
for changed blocks).  If many of these sqrt-n-sized
blocks are affected, then many will be transmitted. If
you know more about what tends to happens with your files,
you can adjust the block size.

(This is all from memory from reading the rsync tech
report some time ago, but I think it remains sounds.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I am off base.)

Best wishes -- Eliot Moss
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Re: Any way to predict the amount of data to be copied when re-copying a file?

2009-11-29 Thread Matt McCutchen 
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 16:07 +, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Is 
> there some way to run rsync in some type of "dry run" mode but where an 
> actual determination of what pages should be copied is performed?
> 
> The current --dry-run doesn't go down to this level of detail as far as I 
> can see.  It determines which files will need to be copied, but not which 
> pages of those files need to be copied.
> 
> So is there something that goes that next step in detail?

Try --only-write-batch.

-- 
Matt

-- 
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Any way to predict the amount of data to be copied when re-copying a file?

2009-11-29 Thread Andrew Gideon 

I do backups using rsync, and - every so often - a file takes far longer 
than it normally does.  These are large data files which typically change 
only a little over time.

I'm guessing that these large transfers are caused by occasional changes 
that "break" (ie. yield poor performance) in the "copy only changed 
pages" algorithm.  But I've no proof of this.  And I view unusual things 
as possible warning flags of serious problems that will rise to bite me 
on a Friday evening.  I'd prefer to address them before they become real 
problems (which makes for a far less stressful life {8^).

So I'd like to *know* that these occasional slow transfers are just 
artifacts of how rsync's "copy only changed pages" algorithm works.  Is 
there some way to run rsync in some type of "dry run" mode but where an 
actual determination of what pages should be copied is performed?

The current --dry-run doesn't go down to this level of detail as far as I 
can see.  It determines which files will need to be copied, but not which 
pages of those files need to be copied.

So is there something that goes that next step in detail?

Note that this doesn't even have to work across a network to meet my 
needs, though that would be ideal.  I could always run it after the 
transfer is completed (which means I'll have both copies of the file on 
the same system).

Thanks...

Andrew
-- 
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html