Rsync Performance In Windows

jw schultz jw at
Wed Jun 18 10:50:54 EST 2003

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Chris McKeever wrote:
> Greger.. 
> I replaced the rsync.exe with the one from your link, it relieved the
> windows CPU some (from 100% to 98% with flucuation to 100%).
> I also took the advice of using the -u switch.  From the man:
> -u, --update                update only (don't overwrite newer files)
> I just want to make sure I am interpretting this flag correctly.  On the
> receiving end, if there is a file that is newer than on the sending end, it
> wont update, but if the sending end file is newer or non-existant then it
> will send?

That is about the extend of it.  Use -vv and you will see
which files are skipped because the destination is newer
than the source.

-u is really only usefull for doing system updates (where
you don't want to overwrite locally modified files), and in
a poor man's bidirectional sync.  If it is skipping lots of
files i would be concerned.  What may be more suitable is

> This reduced the CPU load tremendously and also reduced the transfer time to
> something very acceptable.  I just want to make sure it is still doing what
> I wanted it to.

	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw at

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

More information about the rsync mailing list