late followup to this thread - i just had noted in the man page
that this was unclear and found this thread waiting on the
list for me when i came to catch up.
-W, --whole-file
With this option the incremental rsync algorithm is not used and
the whole file is sent as-is instead. The transfer may be
faster if this option is used when the bandwidth between the
source and target machines is higher than the bandwidth to disk
(especially when the "disk" is actually a networked filesystem).
This is the default when both the source and target are on the
local machine.
I'd suggest changing the last sentence to something like
This is the default when both the source and target are filesystems
(local or networked) mounted on the local machine.
tnx
danno
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 02:37:25PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 12:30:04PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> > Do any "rsync developers" care to confirm/deny? [...] I've used rsync
> > over NFS with no problems.
>
> It has been said many times before that using network-mounted disks is
> suboptimal because rsync is optimizing the data transfer, not the file
> reading -- i.e. if both ends of the transfer are running on the same
> machine, the socket/pipe data that rsync is optimizing is being sent
> locally and the disk-reading is happening via network reads, so rsync
> can't optimize the network use. However, if you don't mind the
> slowdown, it should work OK (as long as the network filesystem involved
> isn't buggy or have compatibility issues).
>
> ..wayne..
> --
> To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
> Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
danno
--
dan pritts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
systems administrator 734/352-4953 office
internet2 734/834-7224 mobile
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
