On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 11:20 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
> Interesting.  I thought that rsync is no worse than using e.g., tar in the 
> case 
> of nothing to compare to.  Do you think rsync is actually worse (slower)?

It probably is slightly slower, especially at start. However, if there
is little in the target directory it will be reasonably fast.

The question is: for bare metal restores, do you care if it completes 5%
faster? Is that worth configuring tar methods if you already use rsync?

For me, the answer is no. Rsync restores, even of 200 GB hosts, have
been nearly as fast as disk and network limitations will allow.

Regards,
Tyler

-- 
"I respect you too much to respect your ridiculous ideas."
   -- Johann Hari


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xperia(TM) PLAY
It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming
smartphone on the nation's most reliable network.
And it wants your games.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/