D. Höhn wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Blair Zajac wrote:
| Anybody mind if I patch rsync.info with this patch? <snip>
Have you verified that rsync still computes the checksums correctly when using your patch ? If you arer 100% sure, go ahead and check in your patched version.
Well, here's a little test I ran to see if checksums were calculated correctly.
I rsync'ed my /sw to a RedHat Linux 9 box (running 2.5.7) using rsync 2.6.2-1 (with no modifications). This was 2.8 Gbytes of data.
From there, I did two rsync's (without -c), from the RedHat box back to two OS X boxes to $HOME/sw. One OS X box has the original un-optimized rsync and the other has the optimized rsync. I ran this command on both after the rsync:
find $HOME/sw -type f -print0 | xargs -0 md5 | sort > sw-md5sums
and than ran an md5 on both sw-md5sums's and they were identical. So the optimized rsync worked fine, even without testing the checksum code.
I then did an rsync with -c from one OS X box to the other so they both would calculate checksums and no updates were sent across the wire (as shown by -v and -P). If there was a checksum difference, then one OS X box would send the portions of the files that has different checksums to the other one and send a message to output, which it didn't.
So everything looks fine.
Blair
-- Blair Zajac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Plots of your system's performance - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
