On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:02:07 -0800, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 08:24:54PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It seems that this method would not use terribly much space in terms of
> > duplicating files, however I am not sure of the --delete portion
>
> In
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:20:53 +0100, Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed 16 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I simply want to maintain a dated backup of a server so that I could
> > always go back to a certain date. I would like to keep this structure
> > for each day for th
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:55:25 -0800, Steve Bonds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:28:43 -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
>
> > Comments? How do people feel about making the --delete-during behavior
> > the default --delete algorithm? I think it will be much more efficient
> > (and l
ed and see if it makes any difference. It does for me. (It buffers
the IO calls so that the number of cygwin system calls are minimized.)
Regards, Greger
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris McKeever
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:29 PM
> To: 'Greger Cronquist'
Thanks for your reply!
> -Original Message-
> From: Greger Cronquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 2:42 PM
> To: _Chris McKeever_
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Rsync Performance In Windows
>
>
> Did you compile from the sources, or did you grab the cygw
Thanks for your response...
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> _Chris McKeever_ wrote:
>
> >The linux machine connecting to the windows rsync daemon
> has a very low
> >performance hit when the session is running (see below).
> However, the
> >windows machine, which
