Paul Slootman wrote: > If you don't mind that the destination copy is invalid for some time > (e.g. if it's just used for backup), _and_ you know that data won't be > moved, only updated at random places, you might try --inplace. That way > the existing copy is updated, instead of copying the data to a new file.
This reminds me. When using --sparse to copy an 80GB disk image, I noticed that rsync sends an awful lot of network data, given that the image is mostly zeros. It appeared that --sparse was being applied at the writing end, not optimising the block checksum transmission at all. -- Jamie -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
