Re: Does rsync detect file corruption? -- hard link
On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 16:04 +0200, Mac User FR wrote: Hard-linking an unchanged dir takes very few place. What if a video editor? Lots of work with video files, which is very large, about 500MB per file. Editor only delete or rearrange frames in that file. And then it will be back up 500MB again. In this case rsync can handle properly. I think. -- Daniel Li -- 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: Does rsync detect file corruption? -- hard link
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 10:09 +0800, Daniel.Li wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 09:58 +0800, Daniel.Li wrote: What if a video editor? Lots of work with video files, which is very large, about 500MB per file. Editor only delete or rearrange frames in that file. And then it will be back up 500MB again. In this case rsync can handle properly. I think. I mean in this case, rsync can't handle properly. It will backup 500MB again. It'll not save any disk space. If I'm wrong, please correct me. That's correct. When small changes are made to big files, rsync reduces network usage but not disk usage. rdiff-backup ( http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup ) reduces disk usage by storing deltas in the destination, but then you need rdiff-backup to recover. -- 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
Re: Does rsync detect file corruption? -- hard link
On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 22:13 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 10:09 +0800, Daniel.Li wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 09:58 +0800, Daniel.Li wrote: What if a video editor? Lots of work with video files, which is very large, about 500MB per file. Editor only delete or rearrange frames in that file. And then it will be back up 500MB again. In this case rsync can handle properly. I think. I mean in this case, rsync can't handle properly. It will backup 500MB again. It'll not save any disk space. If I'm wrong, please correct me. That's correct. When small changes are made to big files, rsync reduces network usage but not disk usage. rdiff-backup ( http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup ) reduces disk usage by storing deltas in the destination, but then you need rdiff-backup to recover. But these are some limitations with rdiff-backup, well, just list what I concerned. a) does not support files greater than 2 GB' b) It seems quite slow (~0.5+MBps), but I didn't test it myself (http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup/FAQ.html#speed ). -- Daniel Li -- 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
