PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:02 AM
To: Dave Dykstra
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rsync: Re: patch to enable faster mirroring of large
filesystems
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 11:02:07AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
...
These numbers show that reading the filenames this way rather than using
the code in place to deal with the include/exclude list cuts the startup
time down to 0 (from 1hr). The actual sending of the filenames is down
from
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Dykstra writes:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 11:02:07AM -0500, Alberto Accomazzi wrote:
...
These numbers show that reading the filenames this way rather than using
the code in place to deal with the include/exclude list cuts the startup
time down to 0 (from
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:00:14PM -0500, Lenny Foner wrote:
...
[ . . . ]
I'm pretty sure that rsync won't use up memory for excluded files so it
would make no difference.
...though this also implies (since you say it'd probably use basically
the same mechanism internally)
Dear all,
here's my own (renewed) pitch to throw in a --files-from patch.
As Dave has suggested in the past, transferring a list of files can be
accomplished using --include and --exclude, and has called for people
to test the performance gains of his old optimization when using these
options
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
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:34:22PM -0500, Lenny Foner wrote:
...
I know you're trying to get reliable statistics so it's clear what
sort of performance we're talking about here. But may I respectfully
suggest that -having- to be so careful about whether optimization
actually got turned on is
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 03:21:51AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
On 20 Nov 2001, Dave Dykstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, by the way, even if the batch stuff accomplishes the same performance
gains, I would still argue that the --files-from type of behavior
that I implemented is a nice
On 26 Nov 2001, Andrew J. Schorr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand your point of view, but I think it is a mistake to
hold rsync's algorithm hostage to the directory tree traversal logic
built into the program.
IMHO, the basic file transfer algorithm of rsync is terrific, but
the
I have attached a patch that adds 4 options to rsync that have helped
me to speed up my mirroring. I hope this is useful to someone else,
but I fear that my relative inexperience with rsync has caused me to
miss a way to do what I want without having to patch the code. So please
let me know if
Before I look at this closely, I have a couple questions.
First, what options do you use to copy? I once saw somebody who went through
a lot of work to cache things and it turned out to be just because he
was using the --checksum option when he shouldn't have.
Next, have you taken a look at
11 matches
Mail list logo
