Karl Vogel wrote: > I'm interested in seeing what kind of grief you're getting from rsync. > I've had to argue with it in the past; feel free to reply privately if > you'd rather. Rsync has been a great performer for me as well. > Don't rule out dumb and strong, it works great for me. Brute force and ignorance will always triumph. :-) > find . -newer /some/timestamp -print > LIST >... > This box has ~630,000 files using 640 Gbytes, but not many files change Note that you must have sufficient ram to hold the inodes in buffer cache. Otherwise I would guess that it would be hugely slower due to the need to read the disk while reading directories. But if there is sufficient ram for filesystem buffer cache then it will be operating at memory speeds. For anyone trying to recreate this goodness but wondering why they aren't seeing it then check that the buffer cache is sufficiently large. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature