Re: Can rsync assume that the destination directory is empty ?

2016-06-09 Thread Simon Hobson
On 9 Jun 2016, at 11:35, Arnaud Aujon Chevallier wrote: > I ran some more test and it show that the lstat calls are only responsible > for 3.7 % of the total time. > > So we could avoid about a third of them (the errors numbers), which will be > about 1%, not very interesting :) > % time

Re: Can rsync assume that the destination directory is empty ?

2016-06-09 Thread Arnaud Aujon Chevallier
Thanks for your answer, I ran some more test and it show that the lstat calls are only responsible for 3.7 % of the total time. So we could avoid about a third of them (the errors numbers), which will be about 1%, not very interesting :) % time seconds usecs/call callserrors sy

Re: Can rsync assume that the destination directory is empty ?

2016-06-09 Thread Kevin Korb
There isn't an option for that and it isn't actually required that the target directory be empty (just a good idea). Plus it has to do the stat calls on the other end anyway so I doubt there would be much performance benefit. Maybe --ignore-times would cause it to not look but I kinda doubt it an

Re: Can rsync assume that the destination directory is empty ?

2016-06-09 Thread Kevin Korb
Actually, don't do --ignore-times. Even if it did prevent the stat calls it would also tell rsync to not care about matching files in the --link-dest dir which would be very bad. On 06/09/2016 06:27 AM, Kevin Korb wrote: > There isn't an option for that and it isn't actually required that the > t

Can rsync assume that the destination directory is empty ?

2016-06-09 Thread Arnaud Aujon Chevallier
Hello, I'm currently using rsync to backup up to 1 TB of small files of relatively small files (hundreds of Ko mostly) My backup strategy is to use a full backup and then backup the diff every day using hardlink with the previous backup. This means that each time I use rsync, the destination