The email you sent to the rsync list seems to be empty. If you have a
question, please try posting it again.
Matt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:00:38AM +, Terry Raggett wrote:
> I'm sorry if you mis-understood me on this issue. I'm not trying to
> denigrate Rsync, as we are convinced that it is a highly capable tool
> that we can adapt for our needs. It is just that in certain situations
> the checksum pro
I'm sorry if you mis-understood me on this issue. I'm not trying to
denigrate Rsync, as we are convinced that it is a highly capable tool
that we can adapt for our needs. It is just that in certain situations
the checksum processing absorbs a lot of CPU time. I have a user that
has been using t
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:31:00PM +, Terry Raggett wrote:
> I'd like to know a little about the internals of RSYNC. I am a little
> confused as to why RSYNC is using both the simple 32 bit algorithm and
> the MD4 checksum function on the same files. From my testing this causes
> a vast over
I'd like to know a little about the internals of RSYNC. I am a little
confused as to why RSYNC is using both the simple 32 bit algorithm and
the MD4 checksum function on the same files. From my testing this causes
a vast overhead that is clearly not represented by RCP (fairly
obvious!). Removin
