Timothy J. Massey wrote: > It seems to me, then, that the documentation is *wrong*: rsync does not > compare against the pool, *ever*; only against a previous backup (most > likely the next-highest backup level, but I have yet to find this > information yet). It is not wrong if you take into account the fact that links are just different names for the same file. RsyncP can only find the existing match by the mangled names in the previous full because it doesn't have access to enough data to recompute the hash of the pool file. However the files that match, being hardlinks, are actually the same file that is in the pool and RsyncP can uncompress that to do the rsync block-compare algorithm with a stock rsync on the other end. If a difference is found, it must construct a new file (as would rsync) with the existing parts from the old file and the differences from the new, then link that in as a new file.
-- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
