On Tuesday 16 March 2004 12:07 pm, Chris Purcell wrote:
Eh? Rsync can be told to only change things that are new/changed. So if sending out new/changed stuff would saturate the lines, then whatever you use to do same is going to saturate the lines.
Am I missing something?
Our frame relay connections are usually only 256K or 384K lines. You don't think that 10 simultaneous rsync connections would be too much for this? Yes, we would only be changing new files but rsync would still have to scan the entire disk of the machine each day, that takes time, especially over a fractional T.
No, I don't think it would be too much... and if so, it wouldn't be rsync's fault. If it's too much, why not rsync to a special directory and then have the remote machine do it's updates from there.
For example, right now I need to change a Perl script that is on each workstation. The script is a small file, under 50K. It would be much, much faster to simply just copy this file to each workstation then to have each machine doing an rsync scan of an entire disk just so that it can copy a 50K Perl file over. We're talking 10 minutes for the scan, as opposed to 10 seconds to simply copy the file over.
Chris
I think you're looking for a 'magical solution'. Rsync should do it if it is done right. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 03/16/04 12:21 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "I've learned- that you can keep puking long after you think you're finished."