Is there a better way to transfer data that doesn't use so much cache?

I've created a script that syncs (and removes) data from as many as 4 places and puts them all in one of 2 directories. The commands are: rsync -avt --progress --remove-source-files --info=progress2 -f'+ *.nef' -f'+ *.jp*g' -f'+ *.tif' -f'+ *.xmp' -f'+ /*' -f'- *' "$D850/DCIM/100ND850/"

Re: Is there a better way to transfer data that doesn't use so much cache?

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 02:04:22PM -0400, Rob Campbell via rsync wrote: > I've created a script that syncs (and removes) data from as many as 4 > places and puts them all in one of 2 directories. The commands are: > > rsync -avt --progress --remove-source-files --info=progress2 -f'+ *.nef' >

Re: Is there a better way to transfer data that doesn't use so much cache?

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 5:41 PM Robin Lee Powell via rsync < rsync@lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 02:04:22PM -0400, Rob Campbell via rsync wrote: > > The problem isn't that there are many syncs because the problem happens > on > > the first one that runs. > > You didn't actually