accurate progress for UI

Robert DuToit rdutoit at
Wed Jan 30 11:35:51 GMT 2008

On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Paul Slootman wrote:
> Do note that disabling the incremental recursion will impact the
> performance, esp. with a large number of files.

I did some tests (I am becoming the OSX rsync_3 benchmark guy!) and  
for 15GB Home folder, there was only a slight difference in  
performance but see that could grow considerably with larger numbers.  
Without incremental recursion, the initial file count seems to take  
forever, though it catches up a bit after that. The incremental  
backups are almost the same in speed at this size. The one option, I  
mentioned before, that does seem to affect performance is the osx- 
creation-dates patch. Oddly, it is much slower for the incremental  
backup scans (2+ times) than for the initial full copy, proportionally.

I think I leave the --no-i-r- option as an option since I now include  
a text field for roll-your-own options in the UI. Half of the people  
want these things decided for them in the code but a lot have asked if  
rsync could do this or that, so now everyone can be happy. Me too.

As for the UI progress bar with the recursion, I will represent the #  
of files copied per increment count and leave out any mention of size  
copied (since that was always just an extrapolation for # of files.)  
That will give a true idea of what rsync is really doing. And maybe I  
can fool the progress bar into slowing down the initial race forward.

Thanks, Rob Dutoit

More information about the rsync mailing list