On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:25:55 + (UTC), Andrew Gideon wrote:
> If a router is involved, it can do egress shaping on the local side.
> That's best. If a router is not involved, then the server must do
I don't think that's best at all. I would think priority queuing is
better than shaping in t
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:49:06 -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> Sorry for the slow reply -- I marked your message for more in-depth
> study, and failed to get back to it until now.
That's OK, I've done worse :-(
> drawbacks:
>
> - It creates a single (potentially really big) directory of files on
>
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:06:11PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> I would like to have an implementation that checks each new file against
> the list of existing destination files; I'm not sure whether it would be
> better to generate the list first (as you described) or postpone new
On June 22 I
Hello rsyncers,
I have long wished for a feature in rsync to detect files that have
renamed on the sender side since the last time a sync was performed,
and avoid transfering those files to the destination the same way it
avoids transfering files that haven't changed.
Example 1: a log directory (