On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:31:43AM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Micha?? G??rny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as excerpted: > > >> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a significant > >> cost to an rsync. > > I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more efficient > > than rsync. Or maybe it would be already? > Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient client-side > for some time. Server-side I don't know about, but I've presumed that's > the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't included switching the default > for user-syncs to git. I expect user/client side, git would be more > efficient already, but as I said, that's handwavey guesses. No, the switch to git will NOT help users, it isn't more efficient.
They will still be best served by rsync, for a couple of reasons: 1. metadata cache is NOT available in Git. 2. rsync for users will actually be LESS traffic than Git. - You can easily prove this. - Change tree A-B-C-D - exclude the generated metadata first of all - Git will include all intermediate steps A..D - rsync will jump you straight to D. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
