DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6378] "rsync -v -rsync -v --inplace --progress
samba...@samba.org
ma...@mattmccutchen.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Comment #1 from ma...@mattmccutchen.net 2009-05-19 21:50 CST -------
As stated in the man page description of --progress, the size shown is the
amount of the file reconstructed by the receiver so far. I'm guessing the
receiver already had the correct first 2129920 bytes of the file from a
previous run, so the delta-transfer algorithm verifies quickly that those
2129920 bytes match the beginning of the source file and the size jumps to
2129920. From that point on, literal data has to be sent, so progress is
slower.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
samba...@samba.org
shl...@iglu.org.il changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
------- Comment #2 from shl...@iglu.org.il 2009-05-20 03:08 CST -------
Hi!
(In reply to comment #1)
> As stated in the man page description of --progress, the size shown is the
> amount of the file reconstructed by the receiver so far. I'm guessing the
> receiver already had the correct first 2129920 bytes of the file from a
> previous run,
That's not true - it's a brand-new transfer. And ls -l on the file in the
remote end does not show nearly as much (as expected from my connection).
> so the delta-transfer algorithm verifies quickly that those
> 2129920 bytes match the beginning of the source file and the size jumps to
> 2129920.
Well, it's not what happens in this case.
> From that point on, literal data has to be sent, so progress is
> slower.
I'm re-opening this bug, because your explanation was not true. Sorry for not
stating earlier that this was a brand new transfer.