Darren Murphy wrote: >Just to add a little to this, the --stats & --human-readable options >provide useful insight as to the efficiency of rsync <snip> >So 3121 files totaling 4.3GB in size, and at least 90% of those files >would change between successive sync runs, yet only a very small >amount of data needs to be transferred.
That tallies with my experience. Obviously it varies considerably with the type of data, but I've yet to find something where it doesn't show a reduction in data transferred. In general, RRD files should 'compress' quite well (unless you use very small consolidations). >I'd also add that in my experience rsync is incredibly robust and reliable. >I've been running an hourly rsync from my main MRTG server to 3 >separate "slaves" for almost 2 years now, and never once had a problem >with data integrity. I'll second that. And of course, even if the process dies part way through, you can just run it again and it will catch up. -- Simon Hobson Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books. _______________________________________________ rrd-users mailing list rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users
