On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:43:57AM -0400, Bryan K. Wright wrote: > directories, though. On my laptop, I have about 20GB of user files > (images, maps, data, documents) and it takes a few minutes of disk > grinding for rsync just to walk the tree and decide what's changed. > This might be prohibitive (or at least prohibitively annoying) for the > user. It also cuts into the battery life. Another problem to worry about is saturation of the link upstream. I'm sure the average user wouldn't want the browser choked by rsync. Yes, you can tell rsync to use at most N KB/s, but that's not always easy to get right, if the user is in the position to estimate it at all - not to mention that link speed might change at any time for e.g. mobile users. And you run into the risk of the opposite scenario: you are forcing rsync to use only a fraction of the bandwidth, when there's nothing else using the rest. Or do we just assume that there's going to be enough bandwidth? A saturated DSL is likely to be still more responsive than a saturated 56k connection. -- Rudi
