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
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.
Matt
diburim wrote:
>
> I guess it is not so simple. Be
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
