100Mbps is about 10MBps so 4GB would take about 400 seconds or a bit under 7
minutes.
BOTH sides will have to read the 4GB file and compare results.
Comparing results will be almost instantaneous over 100Mbps LAN.
Getting the results to compare will depend on disk speed and CPU speed.
It doesn't ha
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 20:53 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-05-13 20:27:03 +0200, Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri 12 May 2006, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > > > Wayne beat me to it. But I was going to say, you might be able to write
> > > >
> Recheck the statistics:
> 4GB file something like 4,000,000,000 bytes
> Total bytes sent: 87,436,048 -- MUCH LESS than 4 GB
> Total bytes received: 539,014
> > > > Total transferred file size: 4077908049 bytes
Sorry, got it now. I missed the 'Total bytes sent' stat and was assu
Recheck the statistics:
4GB file something like 4,000,000,000 bytes
Total bytes sent:87,436,048 -- MUCH LESS than 4 GB
Total bytes received:539,014
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Max Kipness
> Sent: Sunday, May 1
> > Number of files: 50285
> > Number of files transferred: 38
> > Total file size: 16193254538 bytes
> > Total transferred file size: 4077908049 bytes
> > Literal data: 86201342 bytes
> > Matched data: 3989904700 bytes
> > File list size: 945440
> > File list generation time: 6.615 seconds
> > Fil
Max Kipness wrote:
>
> > You could of course (right after an rsync run) do a
> > "cd newdir; find . -type f -links 1 -print" and then randomly check a
> > couple and compare all their attributes such as mtime, permissions to
> > the previous dir. (I still recommend using the --link-dest thing over
> You could of course (right after an rsync run) do a
> "cd newdir; find . -type f -links 1 -print" and then randomly check a
> couple and compare all their attributes such as mtime, permissions to
> the previous dir. (I still recommend using the --link-dest thing over
> using cp -al first.)
Ok,
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:22:37PM +0530, E.Sriram wrote:
> Has this issue been fixed in the latest version.
Nope. To fix this would require some extensive changes to the receiving
side's file handling. And since most systems allow filenames to be 4096
characters long (and thus don't run into th
