Re: [BackupPC-users] Why is rsyncd preferred for Win32 hosts?

[Andy G. <an...@hy...>]

> OK I think I see what happened... the incremental rsyncd I ran actually 
> ended up backing up all 100K files on my laptop.  A typical smb 
> incremental only downloads 4K of changed files.  I suppose the rsync 
> incremental wasn't able to compare with the previous smb backup to 
> determine which files it needed to download.  And this actually took 
> less time than a full smb backup which normally takes 95 minutes.  I'm 
> going to do another test with a full rsync then an incremental rsync.

Here's the results of my test:

Full rsyncd backup, 6.7GB: 56 minutes
	Total Files:  99813
	Existing Files: 99703
	New Files: 135
Incremental rsyncd a few minutes after the full: 23 minutes
	Total Files: 57
	Existing Files: 147
	New Files: 1084 <- why is this so high?

So basically, full backups are faster than smb (95 mins on the same 
data), but incrementals are slower.  But I think I'll stick with it 
because of the timestamp issue.

-Andy