I've got a suggestion regarding the mail Kevin wrote:
Instead of comparing the least m bits of n bytes I'd suggest using a
algorithm as described in the Paper
http://webglimpse.org/publications.html
"Siff -- Finding Similar Files in a Large File System"
ftp://ftp.cs.arizo
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Kevin Easton wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 05:18:42PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:46:37PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> Thanks for the discription of how gzip-rsyncable actually works. I should
> learn to do some more research before shooting my mouth off. I must have
> sounded pretty clueless... the heuristic reset idea is brilliant.
Of course it is: Tridge came up with
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> window of the data in the file (so that it is position-independent, but
> data-dependent). You simply perform a compression reset whenever this
> heuristic is true (and N should be a number that's large enough so that you
> don't reset too often, yet
> "BE" == Ben Escoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote the following on Tue, 04 Jun 2002 10:02:58 -0700
KE> When I finally took the time to properly read Rusty's
KE> "gzip-rsyncable" patch[1] while writing this mail, I discovered
KE> that it appears to use this same general technique, alt
> "KE" == Kevin Easton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote the following on Tue, 4 Jun 2002 17:43:17 +1000
KE> When I finally took the time to properly read Rusty's
KE> "gzip-rsyncable" patch[1] while writing this mail, I discovered
KE> that it appears to use this same general technique, al
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Kevin Easton wrote:
[...]
> If you'll indulge me, I'll just restate the problem (as I see it, anyway)
> before chiming in with my idea...
[snip big discription of why gzip-rsyncable actually does work]
Thanks for the discription of how gzip-rsyncable act
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 05:18:42PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:46:37PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2002
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 05:18:42PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:46:37PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:46:37PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> [...]
> > When i said "content-aware
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 04:57:15AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
[...]
> When i said "content-aware compressor" what i meant was
> that the compressor would actually analiz
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 08:51:26PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:45:43AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:35:05PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
[...]
> > > I don't think it is possib
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:25:15PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:45:43AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:35:05PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
[...]
> > I would guess that the number of changes meeting this criteria would be
> > almost non-existant. I
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:45:43AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:35:05PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> [...]
> > > There is a patch available to gzip to add an option --rsyncable that's
> > > supposed to make it work better with rsync. It's been put into the
> > > "patche
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:35:05PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
[...]
> > There is a patch available to gzip to add an option --rsyncable that's
> > supposed to make it work better with rsync. It's been put into the
> > "patches" directory for the next release of rsync, or you can get it at
> >
> >
This whole discussion on the efficiency of rsyncing
pre-compressed files is probably pointless for Matthias
Munnich. He is trying to do backups. Therefore, he doesn't
want the originals compressed.
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:45:16PM -0500, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:03:56P
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:03:56PM -0400, David Bolen wrote:
> Matthias Munnich [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
>
> > No! Only the sender side has to compress the data. The comparison
> > could be done in the compressed data format. With the -z option
> > the sender compresses the data anyway. The c
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:47:00PM -0700, Matthias Munnich wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am using rsync for backup on the disks of a Linux backup server.
> Obviously the server could store more data it the data were
> compressed. I read the "rsync -> tar" thread. Unfortunately, a
> compressed file system fo
Matthias Munnich [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> No! Only the sender side has to compress the data. The comparison
> could be done in the compressed data format. With the -z option
> the sender compresses the data anyway. The checksum test should
> be faster for the smaller compressed pieces.
Exc
simple. Because next time you run rsync,
> each file will have to be decompress for comparison.
>
> Dib
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Munnich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:47 PM
>
Hi
I am using rsync for backup on the disks of a Linux backup server.
Obviously the server could store more data it the data were
compressed. I read the "rsync -> tar" thread. Unfortunately, a
compressed file system for Linuthere does not seem to exist yet.
However, rsync can use compression fo
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 04:47:31PM +0100, Holger Jahn wrote:
> Hi list!
>
> Is there any way to tell rsync to keep the mirrored files compressed?
>
> I'd like to use it for backup purposes and would like to save some
> space on the target machine.
>
> If there's no such way, I probably have to
Hi list!
Is there any way to tell rsync to keep the mirrored files compressed?
I'd like to use it for backup purposes and would like to save some
space on the target machine.
If there's no such way, I probably have to reactivate my C-skills
(But I hope that ain't necessary :))
Holger
23 matches
Mail list logo
