On Wed 29 Oct 2008, Administrator wrote: > Thank you for that. I added the --no-whole-file switch and that has > sorted it.
Note that rsync's behaviour is for a reason: when doing a local transfer (i.e. not over a network) doing an incremental transfer will be slower due to more I/O being necessary. So "sorting it" may not be what you want. > Now I have another couple of questions. > > Question 1: > > I am using version 2.6.6 which shows this no whole file option in the > man page: > > -W, --whole-file copy files whole (without rsync algorithm) > --no-whole-file always use incremental rsync algorithm > > But someone else has a newer version (3.0.4) and the man page doesn't > show this option, only the -W switch: > > -W, --whole-file copy files whole (without delta-xfer > algorithm) > > But the --no-whole-file switch does work. So it is an option but not > documented in the man page. >From the manpage: --no-OPTION You may turn off one or more implied options by prefixing the option name with “no-”. ... > Question 2: > > The time taken to run the command is the same with or without the > switch. Why is this? I would expect the command with the no whole file > switch to run faster as it only has to transfer a portion of the entire > file. Are you restoring the unmodified file between runs? Paul -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html