Mapped Drive

Stephen Zemlicka stevezemlicka at
Fri Sep 28 22:15:54 GMT 2007

After timing it, I found you're right.  Would this still help for online
storage though as most have much greater download bandwidth than upload.  So
it would basically download the file with your faster download speeds,
compare, then upload the changes with your slower upload speeds.

Stephen Zemlicka
Integrated Computer Technologies
PH. 608-558-5926
E-Mail stevezemlicka at 

-----Original Message-----
From: hashproduct at [mailto:hashproduct at] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:51 PM
To: Stephen Zemlicka
Cc: rsync at
Subject: Re: Mapped Drive

On 9/24/07, Stephen Zemlicka <stevezemlicka at> wrote:
> I think I got it (with the help of a friend).  You can, in fact, rsync to
> mapped drive efficiently.  You must include --no-whole-file.  My 100MB
> only transferred a few MB using that method and it opened up with the
> changes just fine.  Now it works just like I want.  It's not the quickest
> but definitely quicker than uploading hundreds of MB for each database.

Of course --no-whole-file will make rsync report a smaller number of
"bytes sent", but is it actually reducing the amount of I/O to the
mapped drive?  If so, I find this really surprising.  The one
explanation I can think of is that the network filesystem has cached
the file, so reading the basis file costs nothing and writing only the
changed areas (due to --inplace) is a big saving.  Is this the case?


More information about the rsync mailing list