Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:06:23 -0700
From: jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I find
the use of funny chars (including space) in filenames
offensive but we need to deal with internationalizations and
sheer stupidity.
Regard
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:15:29 +1000
From: Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Swabbing to/from network endianness is very cheap. On 486s and higher
it is a single inlined instruction and I think takes about one cycle.
On non-x86 it is free. The cost is barely worth considering
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:18:18 +0800
From: Adrian Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If the sender's/receiver's cwd is guaranteed to be the root of the
corresponding rsync'd hierarchies, then yes, relative paths would
suffice.
>
> UPDATEfoo/
> CREATEfoo/bar1
> UP
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:34:15 -0600
From: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ . . . ]
No, the difficulty of turning on the optimization is irrelevant because the
optimization is no longer in the current version of rsync. It is only
needed to do the performance test whic
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:49:11 -0600
From: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thank you very much for doing the test Alberto. I didn't have any set of
files that large on which I could do a test, and as I said when I tested
the worse case I could think of with my application I
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:26:19 -0600
From: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From the man page:
a trailing slash on the source changes this behavior to
transfer all files from the directory src/bar on the
machine foo into the /data/tmp/. A t
While we're discussing memory issues, could someone provide a simple
answer to the following three questions?
(a) How much memory, in bytes/file, does rsync allocate?
(b) Is this the same for the rsyncs on both ends, or is there
some asymmetry there?
(c) Does it matter whether pushing or pulli
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:27:43 -0600
From: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:14:00PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> >>>>> " " =
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:22:38 -0600
From: Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I like that idea. I would call it "--only-from".
One corner case to consider is: What happens when one of the
pathnames in the list turns out to be a directory? My advice it to
keep it absolutely as simple
