Rsync Performance In Windows
jw at pegasys.ws
Wed Jun 18 10:50:54 EST 2003
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Chris McKeever wrote:
> 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 pegasys.ws
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
More information about the rsync