Wayne Davison wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 01:36:14PM +0800, John wrote:$ \ls -li */var/tmp/backup.iso
Is there something in the above options I should add or remove?
I don't see anything wrong that should prevent the hard-linking from
happening. If you do an "ls -li" on the source files, do they all show
the same inode number? I'll run some tests, just to make sure that that
the options you cite work for me.
17990639 -rw-r--r-- 5 summer summer 4547411968 Sep 14 18:41 20040922-0616-wed/var/tmp/backup.iso
17990639 -rw-r--r-- 5 summer summer 4547411968 Sep 14 18:41 20040922-0645-wed/var/tmp/backup.iso
17990639 -rw-r--r-- 5 summer summer 4547411968 Sep 14 18:41 20040922-0710-wed/var/tmp/backup.iso
17990639 -rw-r--r-- 5 summer summer 4547411968 Sep 14 18:41 20040922-1841-wed/var/tmp/backup.iso
17990639 -rw-r--r-- 5 summer summer 4547411968 Sep 14 18:41 latest/var/tmp/backup.iso
Rather than transferring a directory and all its contents amounting to some tens of thousands of files, would I be better off making a filesystem in a file:
dd if=/dev/zero seek=$((20*1024*1024)) count=0 bs=1024 of=20-gig
mke2fs -F -q 20-gig
and then transferring that?
The downsides of that are that (1) you don't get any benefit of skipping files that are already up-to-date (since it will update the entire 20-gig of data every transfer) and (2) the block size will be pretty large, so there won't be as much matched data (so more data will have to be resent over the wire).
What determines the blocksize? Is overriding it a Bad Idea?
Is there a better plan?
-- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
