On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Nick Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rich Rauenzahn wrote: > > dan wrote: > >> no, incrementals are more efficient on bandwidth. they do a less > >> strenuous test to determine if a file has changed. > >> > >> at the expense of CPU power on both sides, you can compress the rsync > >> traffic either with rsync -z > > > > Have you tried rsync -z? Last I heard, BackupPC's rsync modules don't > > support it. > > Actually, if I use the -z/--compress option in rsync or use ssh > compression BackupPC dies after a few hours (aborted by signal=PIPE). > Any suggestions on how to figure out why this is failing. Works fine > without compression, but takes forever...
As Rich said, BackupPC's rsync modules don't support compression. SSH compression should work fine, though. -Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
