X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <47297CD3.40ACEE1D@dessent.net> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:14:27 -0700 From: Brian Dessent X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: copying a million tiny files? References: <6a42eec70710311438s273b63dcxc6c741dde4593afc AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <47294BE7 DOT E195E110 AT dessent DOT net> <001c01c81c3d$992990c0$020aa8c0 AT DFW5RB41> <20071101155758 DOT 4084 AT blackhawk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com "d.henman" wrote: > >From what Gary mentions..... indeed rsync is the best way to go. > At least for thinking, on time backups. > > With rsync, only the first time is slow. Did you even *read* the original question? He didn't say anything about doing incremental backups, he just wanted to "move some files between disks". He also explicitly said that he's currently using rsync but that it was unsatisfactorily slow in even just coming up with the candidate list of files to transfer, let alone actually doing anything. The rsync algorithm won't do anything to help in this case. > Using xcopy, is kind of silly and wont get you compatiblity...... especially in scripts.... Portability to non-Windows systems is of course a problem but xcopy is present on every install of Windows that has ever existed going back to some very old version of MS-DOS so it is probably one of the most portable commands in existance on this platform. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/