In message <560ce706....@sanitarium.net>, Kevin Korb <k...@sanitarium.net> wrote:
>Yes, when it comes to local copies cp is significantly faster than >rsync. Without --link-dest there isn't much advantage to using rsync >for backups. The only thing you get beyond cp -au is --delete. I just now remembered the (forehead slap) bloody obvious reason I decided to use rsync to make and maintain my backup drive(s). Yes, it theory I could have used something simpler... cp -R or else maybe cpio -p... but those just copy everything blindly. For my backups, I only need/want to have the NEW and/or MODIFIED files copied to the backup drive. (And also, of course, I need to have files that have been deleted on the main drive be deleted also on the backup drive.) Rsync does everything I want as far as making and maintaining backups. I could also have used FreeBSD backup & restore programs, but for reasons I can't really remember anymore, I concluded that rsync was the better option. Regards, rfg P.S. I have no idea what the -u option for cp is supposed to do. I guess that must be a Linux-ism. The FreeBSD man page for cp doesn't mention any such thing as a -u option. -- 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
