Re: employ rsync per file?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Man page says: ...try rsync instead.
> Say, couldn't sitecopy employ rsync as one of its optional backend methods,
> gaining speed over ftp, for mundane updating?
> I.e., I like the sitecopy model, except when it comes down to sending
> each individual file, then it would be nice to have bring in rsync if
> available and chosen by the user, to speed things up a bit.

Well, if you already have rsync, rsh or ssh access to the remote host,
you can always use rsync.

Not to criticize sitecopy, not at all, I use it every day for updating a
website where I only have FTP access, but... what would be the added
value of sitecopy as compared to plain rsync ?

IMHO: if you have rsync access, use rsync - if you have FTP access and
no rsync, use sitecopy

sitecopy is a great and very, very useful tool, but rsync does its job
very well too, I really don't see the point of having sitecopy use rsync.

cheers
- --
  -o) Pascal Bleser     http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
  /\\ <[email protected]>       <[email protected]>
 _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFELFQ4r3NMWliFcXcRAmGfAKCrQO2d1arZi9NKum9xkzTtkmGr3ACfRl7Y
Y0FrTchMaxCuwCmReJr0PPo=
=uH1j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
sitecopy maillist  -  [email protected]
http://dav.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/sitecopy