WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: filetool.sh: Why not using rsync as backup utility?  (Read 7491 times)

Offline Ulysses_

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
Re: filetool.sh: Why not using rsync as backup utility?
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2010, 07:29:08 AM »
Just make sure you don't look at everything from the computer's point of view. :) Human purposes and abstractions are what matters.  Otherwise we'd still be programming in assembly.

Offline henrixd

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: filetool.sh: Why not using rsync as backup utility?
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2010, 02:01:20 AM »
Linux file copy benchmark rsync vs cpio vs cp vs tar

newbielink:http://blog.mudy.info/2010/07/linux-file-copy-benchmark-cp-vs-cpio-vs-tar-vs-rsync/ [nonactive]

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: filetool.sh: Why not using rsync as backup utility?
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2010, 05:43:54 PM »
Linux file copy benchmark rsync vs cpio vs cp vs tar

http://blog.mudy.info/2010/07/linux-file-copy-benchmark-cp-vs-cpio-vs-tar-vs-rsync/

Interesting per se, but not of much relevance for the TC backup mechanism for more than one reason:

1. The biggest part of time used for the TC backup is due to compression - as opposed to simple copying or uncompressed archiving.
2. Several options used in this test are not applicable to the busybox version of these apps.
3. rsync seems to be no longer in base - as opposed to mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.

What could be of more relevance for the backup would be benchmarks for compression (time versus size trade-off). But then there also the choices within TC base would be limited.
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)