Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Thu Oct 1 20:48:13 UTC 2015
In message <560CE706.303 at sanitarium.net>,
Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net> wrote:
>Yes, when it comes to local copies cp is significantly faster than
>rsync. Without --link-dest there isn't much advantage to using rsync
>for backups. The only thing you get beyond cp -au is --delete.
I just now remembered the (forehead slap) bloody obvious reason I decided
to use rsync to make and maintain my backup drive(s).
Yes, it theory I could have used something simpler... cp -R or else
maybe cpio -p... but those just copy everything blindly. For my
backups, I only need/want to have the NEW and/or MODIFIED files
copied to the backup drive. (And also, of course, I need to have
files that have been deleted on the main drive be deleted also on
the backup drive.)
Rsync does everything I want as far as making and maintaining backups.
I could also have used FreeBSD backup & restore programs, but for
reasons I can't really remember anymore, I concluded that rsync was
the better option.
P.S. I have no idea what the -u option for cp is supposed to do.
I guess that must be a Linux-ism. The FreeBSD man page for cp doesn't
mention any such thing as a -u option.
More information about the rsync