On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 11:01, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 13:00, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> > jw schultz wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 12:38:40AM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
[...]
> > I have not heard of unison. I have heard that pysync was successful in
> > a limited te
Recently various needs for multiple version handling were discussed
and I put forward a plan of mine. Subsequently the proposal for a
--compare-file= switch had support, so I have implemented
this. I have also implemented an experimental --compare-auto which
decides which file to match against usi
On 17 Oct 2003, Rene Schumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I cant get the bwlimit option working right.
> If i set this option over 400 kbyte per sec i still only get 400kbyte
> per sec, whether wich value i set.
> I try this option with a 100MB big file.
> I use a debian stable System
Donovan Baarda wrote:
Any actual reason not to do that?
rsync can use what I refer to in pysync as "context compression". This
is where the matching data is compressed even though the matching
compressed data is not transmitted (because the other end already has
it). This "primes" the compres
> I cant get the bwlimit option working right.
> If i set this option over 400 kbyte per sec i still only get
> 400kbyte per sec, whether wich value i set. I try this option
> with a 100MB big file. I use a debian stable System with
> rsync version 2.5.6cvs protocol version 26. Can someone tell
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:38:32PM -0500, Max Kipness wrote:
> > > > I started monitoring lan traffic with RRDTool on a
> linux box the
> > > > other day that runs rsync, and I've found what I would
> consider a
> > > > strange traffic pattern. This linux box rsync
> > > about 2Gb of
> > > >
Hello!
I cant get the bwlimit option working right.
If i set this option over 400 kbyte per sec i still only get 400kbyte
per sec, whether wich value i set.
I try this option with a 100MB big file.
I use a debian stable System with rsync version 2.5.6cvs protocol
version 26.
Can someone tell me h
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:34:17AM +0200, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> jw schultz wrote:
>
> >>What is the general recommendation for compression when using ssh?
> >>
> >>
> >Use rsync's compression.
> >
> >
> >>If so, is there a clear prefference which is more efficient, rsync or ssh?
> >>
> >>
>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:09:03PM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> I've pondered the feedback and revised my proposal to the client. Here
> is the revised project objectives. Notably, this is the addition of 4),
> the deletion of the whole slew of items actually related to handling
> versioned fi
jw schultz wrote:
What is the general recommendation for compression when using ssh?
Use rsync's compression.
If so, is there a clear prefference which is more efficient, rsync or ssh?
Yes.
Why, if they both use zlib?
Moreover compressing "at a higher level" always seems a good di
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:51:53AM -0400, Brian K. White wrote:
> What is the general recommendation for compression when using ssh?
Use rsync's compression.
> Is it a wasteful performance hit to have both ssh and rsync do compression
> (when using rsync over ssh)?
Yes.
> If so, is there a clea
11 matches
Mail list logo