rsync - Aug 2003 - binary copies vs ascii copies

I have a question about rsync, which is new for me. Hope you can help me:

 

I have copied a binary file whose size is about 100 MB using rsync and I noticed
that it takes a lot of time.

The same size with a text file wasted really much less time.

 

That binary file is incremental, i.e. it started with a size of 2 kb and then it
grew up.

 

But now I am confused with the following:

Is the performance of rsync better with no-incremental files?

Is the performance of rsync better with text files?

Is it the best tool for binary-incremental files? And if it is, which parameters
do I have to use on rsync?

 

Thanks in advance for your kindly help.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:59:22PM -0500, Carniado Rodr?guez Claudia
wrote:
> I have copied a binary file whose size is about 100 MB using rsync and
> I noticed that it takes a lot of time.  The same size with a text file
> wasted really much less time.
As J.W. mentioned, rsync doesn't differentiate between text and binary
files, so the difference has to be coming from somewhere else.  For
instance, if the network connection is compressed (or if you have
compression turned on in the rsync or ssh layer), the text file could
easily transfer much faster due to that (since text compresses more than
binary data).  Alternately, if both are incremental updates, a text file
is often more similar to the latest version, and thus updates with less
data sent (since more of it matches).  E.g., a compressed file might
have no shared data between the old and new version, so it has to be
sent again in total.

..wayne..