On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:07:51PM +0200, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:12:30PM +0200, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

>
> >>The first pass of "rename-without-modification" could even be much easier:
> >>size and timestamp should match.

> >
> >Eeek. That's a bit too risky for my tastes.
> >I'd be comfortable with "Size && timestamp && (checksum || filename)"
> >but not just "Size && timestamp".

>
> Surely. But this first pass would reduce the necessity for the
> checksumming pass a lot.
> And the checksumming pass can stop on the first mismatch.


Maybe. If sizes matched but timestamps didn't, I think I'd still
checksum and skip if matched. OTOH, if sizes don't match, you /could/
skip the checksum. It's a little more complicated since your receiver
checksums are then indexed differently than the sender checksums, but
it /would/ be cheaper.

-chris

>
> Cheers -e
> --
> Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
> --
> 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