On Wed 29 Oct 2008, Administrator wrote:

> Thank you for that. I added the --no-whole-file switch and that has
> sorted it.


Note that rsync's behaviour is for a reason: when doing a local transfer
(i.e. not over a network) doing an incremental transfer will be slower
due to more I/O being necessary. So "sorting it" may not be what you
want.

> Now I have another couple of questions.
>
> Question 1:
>
> I am using version 2.6.6 which shows this no whole file option in the
> man page:
>
> -W, --whole-file copy files whole (without rsync algorithm)
> --no-whole-file always use incremental rsync algorithm
>
> But someone else has a newer version (3.0.4) and the man page doesn't
> show this option, only the -W switch:
>
> -W, --whole-file copy files whole (without delta-xfer
> algorithm)
>
> But the --no-whole-file switch does work. So it is an option but not
> documented in the man page.


>From the manpage:


--no-OPTION
You may turn off one or more implied options by prefixing
the option name with “no-”. ...

> Question 2:
>
> The time taken to run the command is the same with or without the
> switch. Why is this? I would expect the command with the no whole file
> switch to run faster as it only has to transfer a portion of the entire
> file.


Are you restoring the unmodified file between runs?


Paul
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html