Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> On 12/20 04:29 , cantthinkofanickname wrote:
>> But if I do that do I now have to go round to every Windows PC I need to
>> backup and install something. I thought the idea of SMB was to avoid that
>> stage. Maybe I'm wrong here?
>>
>> Any particular reason that I should abandon SMB?
> 
> Because rsync only transfers the changed files, not all of them. So backups
> using rsyncd on windows are much faster in most cases.

Actually, rsync only transfers the changes within changed files - but 
that may not be important to you if you have plenty of bandwidth.  The 
server side still reconstructs a complete file copy and the server disk 
may be your bottleneck.  The other difference is that incremental runs 
using smb or tar are based strictly on the file timestamps and may miss 
files that are new in their current location but were created/copied 
with a method that preserves old timestamps - like unzip.  Rsync does a 
comparison against the last full run and will pick up any differences.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/