| 1 |
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:25:43 +0000 |
| 2 |
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:31:43AM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Micha?? G??rny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as |
| 6 |
> > excerpted: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > >> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a |
| 9 |
> > >> significant cost to an rsync. |
| 10 |
> > > I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more |
| 11 |
> > > efficient than rsync. Or maybe it would be already? |
| 12 |
> > Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient |
| 13 |
> > client-side for some time. Server-side I don't know about, but |
| 14 |
> > I've presumed that's the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't |
| 15 |
> > included switching the default for user-syncs to git. I expect |
| 16 |
> > user/client side, git would be more efficient already, but as I |
| 17 |
> > said, that's handwavey guesses. |
| 18 |
> No, the switch to git will NOT help users, it isn't more efficient. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> They will still be best served by rsync, for a couple of reasons: |
| 21 |
> 1. metadata cache is NOT available in Git. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I means using separate proto for metadata, not necesarrily git. In any |
| 24 |
case, if it comes to transferring a lot of frequently-changing files, |
| 25 |
rsync is not that efficient... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives