Is there any reason why caching programs would need to set the
value, rather than it just being a fixed value? I think it is hard
to describe what this is for and what it should be set to. Maybe a
--fixed-checksum-seed option would make some sense, or for a caching
mechanism to be built in to
Is there any reason why caching programs would need to set the
value, rather than it just being a fixed value?
I think it is hard to describe what this is for and what it should be
set to. Maybe a --fixed-checksum-seed option would make some sense,
or for a caching mechanism to be built in
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 02:46:43PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote:
Is there any reason why caching programs would need to set the
value, rather than it just being a fixed value?
I think it is hard to describe what this is for and what it should be
set to. Maybe a --fixed-checksum-seed option
Block checksums come from the receiver so cached block
checksums are only useful when sending to a server which had
better know it has block checksums cached.
The first statement is true (block checksums come from the receiver),
but the second doesn't follow. I need to cover the case where
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 06:04:52PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote:
Block checksums come from the receiver so cached block
checksums are only useful when sending to a server which had
better know it has block checksums cached.
The first statement is true (block checksums come from the
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 02:46:43PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote:
Is there any reason why caching programs would need to set the
value, rather than it just being a fixed value?
I think it is hard to describe what this is for and what it should be
set to. Maybe a --fixed-checksum-seed option
While the idea of rsyncing with compression is mildly
attractive i can't say i care for the new compression
format. It would be better just to use the standard gzip or
other format. If you are going to create a new file type
you could at least discuss storing the blocksums in it so
that
Hi,
i am using Rsync for making backups of a MySQL database. The MySQL files can
be compressed about 1:10 and i want to make use of this fact.
Rsync currently doesn't support saving files in a compressed state. I
personally think this should be a feature for the filesystem (in the sense of
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:50:27AM +0100, Harald Fielker wrote:
Hi,
i am using Rsync for making backups of a MySQL database. The MySQL files can
be compressed about 1:10 and i want to make use of this fact.
Rsync currently doesn't support saving files in a compressed state. I
personally
