Here is the missing attachment ;-)
On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 21:01 +0200, rsync--- via rsync wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 07:37 -0400, Kevin Korb wrote:
> > So I decided to do a quick test using the Linux kernel source tree since
> > it has lots of files.
>
> Excellent idea using kernel sources!
On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 07:37 -0400, Kevin Korb wrote:
> So I decided to do a quick test using the Linux kernel source tree since
> it has lots of files.
Excellent idea using kernel sources! A lot of different files...
I will use this to create indicative benchmarks for different scenarios...
>
On Fri 22 Sep 2023, Kevin Korb via rsync wrote:
> 444 {} +' to make read only files for rsync to want to chmod, then used cp
> -al to make several duplicate trees using hard linked files. An rm -rf on
> one such tree took .97 seconds while an rsync deletion took 1.25 seconds.
Be sure to drop the
So I decided to do a quick test using the Linux kernel source tree since
it has lots of files. I duplicated a tree, used 'find . -type f -exec
chmod 444 {} +' to make read only files for rsync to want to chmod, then
used cp -al to make several duplicate trees using hard linked files. An
rm -r
On Thu, 2023-09-21 at 20:08 -0400, Kevin Korb via rsync wrote:
> I have heard in the past that rsyncing an empty dir over a tree to
> delete the tree is faster than an rm -rf but I can't say I have ever
> benchmarked it to get any actual numbers.
This **may** indeed be a myth (for a long time n
