"intelligent" rsync scripts?
c.shoemaker at cox.net
Wed Oct 26 20:00:48 GMT 2005
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:07:51PM +0200, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:12:30PM +0200, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
> >>The first pass of "rename-without-modification" could even be much easier:
> >>size and timestamp should match.
> >Eeek. That's a bit too risky for my tastes.
> >I'd be comfortable with "Size && timestamp && (checksum || filename)"
> >but not just "Size && timestamp".
> Surely. But this first pass would reduce the necessity for the
> checksumming pass a lot.
> And the checksumming pass can stop on the first mismatch.
Maybe. If sizes matched but timestamps didn't, I think I'd still
checksum and skip if matched. OTOH, if sizes don't match, you /could/
skip the checksum. It's a little more complicated since your receiver
checksums are then indexed differently than the sender checksums, but
it /would/ be cheaper.
> Cheers -e
> Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke at gwdg.de, em at kki.org)
> To unsubscribe or change options:
> Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
More information about the rsync