Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> Hmmm... rsync is so efficient that I have to wonder what kind of >> extreme case would make this attractive. I'd be so afraid that one >> transaction > > For backup and redundancy purposes, I have an NFS server which I rsync to > local disk every night. It takes approx 6 hours for 1TB over direct > attached GB.
Just curious here: do you think it takes so long because you have a zillion files in there, or because it transfers a lot of data over a relatively slow link ? >> One thin I am playing with is disconnected filesystem, and right now >> nothing beats rsync... My only issue with rsync is deleted files, right >> now I have three scripts (push, pull, sync) and the push/pull is >> basically a delete there what's not here, while the sync, is just a >> sync, and it works quite > > Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but why not use rsync --delete ? That's why I have the push and the pull scripts, that's why it is still manual. If you blindly use --delete, and say you are pushing from your laptop to your server, but a new file was created by cron on the server, this new file does not exist on the laptop, and gets deleted. I will look at Unison as suggested, and report about it. -- Yves. http://www.sollers.ca/blog/2008/no_sound_PulseAudio http://www.sollers.ca/blog/2008/PulseAudio_pas_de_son/.fr _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
