On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:38:49AM -0500, Bert wrote:
> >The network traffic in this case is the blocksums and file
> >block copy instructions. This is the same traffic that you
> >would get if you updated the timestamps.
>
> Hmmm. Here is the stats output at the end of one of these
> all-permissions-have-changed rsync sessions:
> (this indicates to me that rsync used no local data and sent everything
> over the wire)
> Number of files: 40817
> Number of files transferred: 37757
> Total file size: 4031988583 bytes
> Total transferred file size: 4031988573 bytes
> Literal data: 4031988573 bytes
> Matched data: 0 bytes
> File list size: 1263669
> Total bytes written: 604198
> Total bytes read: 4035210974
>
> wrote 604198 bytes read 4035210974 bytes 347331.23 bytes/sec
> total size is 4031988583 speedup is 1.00
>
>
>
> Also, here is the rsync command that dirvish invoked:
> (perhaps interesting is the whole-file option?)
> ACTION: rsync -v --stats -a -H --delete --delete-excluded --numeric-ids
> --exclude-from - -W --link-dest /usr/local/data/bac
> kups-dirvish/pcdirs-home/20030310-12:55/tree
> localhost:/usr/local/data/pc-homedirs/home/
> /usr/local/data/backups-dirvish/pc
> dirs-home/20030314-19:50/tree | sed -e '/\/$/d' -e '/ [-=]> /d' >>
> /usr/local/data/backups-dirvish/pcdirs-home/20030314-19:
> 50/log
>
>
> Finally, here is an indication that the 20030310 and 20030314 backups were
> similar:
> bash-2.05b# du -s 2003031[04]*
> 3967478 20030310-12:55
> 4083962 20030314-19:50
>
> (diff on the first 10,000 filenames showed only 4 changes)
>
>
> Is this what you expected to see and what you meant by "the same traffic
> that you would get if you updated the timestamps"? I honestly don't know
> what is expected if the timestamps update, though I vaguely remember lots
> of CPU (calc checksums) but not nearly as much network traffic as this when
> daylight savings kicked in & the FAT timestamps got confused.
With those options a timestamp change would have had the
same effect. Using the whole-file option will disable the
rsync algorithm so, yes, you will see no use of the local
file.
Even if a copy were made when only the meta-data changed i
wouldn't do so if -W is applied. With a fast network local
copy is often slower than a network copy due to the disk
seeks.
If you are using dirvish set the client field to the output
of hostname, not localhost, and it will do a local copy.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
