Rsync dies

Randy Kramer rhkramer at
Fri May 17 11:37:06 EST 2002

Allen, John L. wrote:
> In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> the list of things to fix.  It seems that every fifth post is a
> complaint about this problem!  Sorry if this sounds like ungrateful
> whining, but I think rsync would be greatly improved if the overall
> way it processes multiple files were overhauled to be much more
> resource friendly.

Thanks for that opening ;-)

My guess is that such a change would be a fairly big undertaking.  If
someone considers going that far, I'd like to suggest at least
considering dividing rsync functionality into two (or a few) programs.

(This isn't completely fair, but when I hear about Linux programs that
do one thing only (and do it well), I laugh to myself and think about
the --brush_teeth option that must be in there somewhere. ;-) )

It seems to me it would be nice to have a simple module (i.e.,
standalone program) whose basic function in life is to use the rsync
algorithm to transfer a single file efficiently.

Then, one or more other programs (that can call the first program as
needed) can be provided to do things like traverse a directory to find
out what files must be "rsync'd", change ownership and permission if
required, consider includes and excludes, and whatever else.  Seems to
me the programming would be simpler, the documentation could be simpler
and more understandable, and users could be less confused.

Just another $.02.

Randy Kramer

More information about the rsync mailing list