Re: [Hampshire] Replication speed - rsync v robocopy

On 7 August 2011 12:41, Rob Malpass <linux@???> wrote:
> Hi all
>
>
>
> A bit of expertise on rsync (and seemingly its windows equivalent robocopy)
> please.   I'm trying to build a mirror of this huge store of files I have -
> currently ~750Gb so any differential copying method will save a huge amount
> of time as each file is around 10Gb.
>
>
>
> After (shamefully admits years of being too frightened by the syntax!) I've
> just found out that
>
>
>
> rsync -avz source dest
>
>
>
> is all I need.   Therein lies a bit of my concern - I have two nagging
> problems:
>
>
>
> 1) rsync is much faster than robocopy.   Also does anyone know of a good GUI
> for rsync?   With around 100Gb to replicate each time I do it - I could use
> a progress indicator (beyond using the --progress switch).
>
> 2) The files are being created on an XP machine and the filesystem on source
> and dest is ntfs.   As such I'm getting files (when I see them in Nautilus
> etc) as
>
>
>
> "An /Example/ Of/ Something.mpg"
>
>
>
> If rsync is copying these, do I have anything to worry about when I put the
> dest back into a windows machine?
>

On a windows platform, the biggest problem you will have will be path
length and permissions when using rsync or robocopy.

If both ends are windows, I would use robocopy. It is a MS tool for a
MS platform.
If one end is Linux, and the other Windows, then you will most likely
run into path length problems on the Windows side, and setting
permissions the same as windows on the Linux side.