On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:31:43AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Micha?? G??rny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
> >> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a significant
> >> cost to an rsync.
> > I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more efficient
> > than rsync. Or maybe it would be already?
> Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient client-side 
> for some time.  Server-side I don't know about, but I've presumed that's 
> the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't included switching the default 
> for user-syncs to git.  I expect user/client side, git would be more 
> efficient already, but as I said, that's handwavey guesses.
No, the switch to git will NOT help users, it isn't more efficient.

They will still be best served by rsync, for a couple of reasons:
1. metadata cache is NOT available in Git.
2. rsync for users will actually be LESS traffic than Git.
   - You can easily prove this.
   - Change tree A-B-C-D
   - exclude the generated metadata first of all
   - Git will include all intermediate steps A..D
   - rsync will jump you straight to D.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@g.o
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85