Re: linux copying
on Tue, May 13, 2003 at 04:07:56PM -0400, list.debian-user@natch.dyndns.org (list.debian-user@natch.dyndns.org) wrote:
>
> |Note that the piped tar trick does you pretty well:
> |
> | $ tar cvf . | ( cd newpath; tar xvf - )
> |
> |...too, tar is by default verbose and lets you know what's going on. In
> |the above instance, on *both* the read and write sides of the equation.
> |
> |For synching up two systems, rsync wins over tar.
> |
>
> as you said, rsync keeps also good info on permissions,
> pipes, sockets....
>
> best of all, it permits to "continue" if the first copying has failed.
> (usefull if there is tons of Gigs to copy)
>
> rsync can be used locally :
>
> rsync -v -a /boot /target
Note that rsync is nominally less efficient than tar for "copy this
many-years' archive to that thar virgin unplowed disk", as rsync has to
determine that the disk really is virgin (a task for which, under
slightly different circumstances, I might volunteer). Tar simply copies
the files.
However, for the "copy this many years' archive to that pile of rubble I
updated from here yesterday", rsync wins massively.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Office Despot: Office Depot embraces Microsoft XP logo requirement.
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit030.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8472
Reply to: