| Stephen Gran on 2 Aug 2006 22:40:23 -0000 |
|
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 04:13:11PM -0400, Jeff Abrahamson said:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:03:27PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > Also, as a side note, the one time I ever had a real problem with
> > rsync was when transferring a file larger than the available drive
> > space. It took forever to update an existing version of the file --
> > way longer than to copy it in the first place -- and then crapped
> > out after a couple hours claiming that it was out of disk space. So
> > I guess it tried to create a whole separate copy of the destination
> > file, and couldn't manage to do the free space calculation at the
> > beginning of the process. Grrr!
>
> The rsync algorithm does not work in place: it creates a new copy
> based on diffs and the old copy.
>
> I saw a paper at Usenix ATC in 2003 about in-place rsync. Cool graph
> theoretic stuff so that things were copied only as they could be to
> update the file, probably useful for handhelds with limited memory.
> The problem, of course, is that if the transfer dies mid-stream,
> you've corrupted the file pending a new rsync, instead of having a
> usable but out-of-date file.
This is the option:
--inplace update destination files in-place
Not recommended if you care about the data, as Jeff pointed out, but an
option if it's just backups.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | If only Dionysus were alive! Where |
| steve@lobefin.net | would he eat? -- Woody Allen |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|