The problem is some files don't change in size. So I was hoping that the
checksums could be cached. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought the checksum
determined what actual blocks were transferred. I suppose it could be
cached at either storage location.
_
Stephen Zeml
On 9/28/07, Stephen Zemlicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a way to have rsync cache the checksums for something like this and
> would that help?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. You said you were using the -c
(--checksum) option, which makes rsync decide whether to update each
destina
On 9/28/07, Stephen Zemlicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 uplo
Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:55:32 +0200, lapo wrote:
> Lapo Luchini wrote:
> > As a Cygwin rsync package maintainer, the following security fixes have
> > been brought to my attention:
> >
> > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/net-misc/rsync/files/rsync-2.6.9-stats-fix.patch
> > http://sourc
Lapo Luchini wrote:
> As a Cygwin rsync package maintainer, the following security fixes have
> been brought to my attention:
>
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/net-misc/rsync/files/rsync-2.6.9-stats-fix.patch
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/net-misc/rsync/files/
As a Cygwin rsync package maintainer, the following security fixes have
been brought to my attention:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/net-misc/rsync/files/rsync-2.6.9-stats-fix.patch
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/net-misc/rsync/files/rsync-2.6.9-fname-obo.patch
A
