Have the hard-links optimizations that were described here been implemented? http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2004-January/008137.html In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the --hard-links option on large (100GB and above) images? Does it still use a ton of memory? Or has that situation been alleviated? ..Chuck.. -- http://www.quantumlinux.com Quantum Linux Laboratories, LLC. ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology "The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit." - FDR 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
On Tue 05 Jun 2007, Chuck Wolber wrote:> > Have the hard-links optimizations that were described here been > implemented?It has.> In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the --hard-links > option on large (100GB and above) images? Does it still use a ton of > memory? Or has that situation been alleviated?The size of the filesystem isn't relevant, the number of hard-linked files is. It still uses a certain amount of memory for each hard-linked file, but the situation is a lot better than with earlier rsync versions. (As always, make sure you use the newest version.) Paul Slootman