On 10/11/2007, Otto Moerbeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your example just shows copying big files takes long. The point being, > if the file was not sparse, it would take at least the same time. > Blaming sparseness for the long cp time is not "fair". > > -Otto
But of course it would be semi-nice if the copy/sync commands were not only aware that they are copying a sparse file, but if they also only copied the data/space that the sparse file actually occupies (as opposed to copying the full allocated data). I say semi-nice because the benefits in speed and decreased bandwith requirements would come at the expense of extra "special case" code, ie. added complexity, which as we all know might not necessarily always be "worth it".
