On 1/19/2013 1:28 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: > Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 19.01.2013 15:46, schrieb Nicolas Thierry-Mieg: >>> M. Fioretti wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 08:07:40 AM -0500, SilverTip257 wrote: >>>>> if you really want to eliminate that data being transferred, I >>>>> suppose you could do the extra work and rename the directory at the >>>>> same time on the source and destination. Not ideal in the least. >>>> Not ideal indeed, but I'll probably do it that way next time that some >>>> renaming like this happens on very large folders. I assume that after >>>> that, I'd also have to launch rsync with the options that says to not >>>> consider modification time. >>> no I don't think you will, since the file modification times won't have >>> changed. >> and even if the did - who cares? >> >> * rsync does not transfer unchanged data ever >> * rsync will sync the times to them from the sources >> * so have nearly zero network traffic > Not true: if you change the modification time on a file, by default > rsync will copy the whole file again. > > See man rsync: > Rsync finds files that need to be transferred using a “quick check” > algorithm (by default) that looks for files that have changed in size or > in last-modified time. > > and yes I've tested this before posting ;-) > > to avoid this you need to use --size-only . > Yet size only is not reliable. If for instance you have a simple text file with the word hellO and someone catches the typo and changes it to hello, the filesize doesn't change as near as I can see. Both show as 6 using ls -al. Unless rsync uses a more granular check of filesize that I am not aware of? If this is the case, then someone could potentially edit a large document fixing numerous simple typos and wind up with the same filesize. -- John Hinton 877-777-1407 ext 502 http://www.ew3d.com Comprehensive Online Solutions _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos