I am going to try and de-Dan the conversation (make it about
reality rather than just Dan's opinion... he has a problem
separating the two).
On Jun 26, 2007, at 9:51 PM, Dan Shoop wrote:
Why do I use rsync?? For backups?? Cause it's a great tool??
I'm not
sure
I understand the question.
You're right, you don't. Since if you did understand the question
you'd realize:
A) It's not a great tool
Rsync is a great tool, but has some real problems on MacOS X.
Dan just has never used it, so of course it is "bad".
You know that's a *really* stupid comment. I don't know why you felt
it necessary.
Of course I've use rsync.
I *don't* recommend it for under Mac OS X.
So bugger off on this one.
B) it's highly problematic on OS X or any filesystem that's not POSIX-esque
This is true, but it is better to say that it has problems
with things outside of the strict POSIX space. If you are just
working with the data fork of files, and can ignore ACL's then it is
a great tool.
No it still fails to handle metadata properly.
C) It doesn't do "backups" but merely synchronizes directories and files
But with a hard-link system it makes an excellent backup
tool. Basically a poor-mans snapshot system. Unix administrators
have been using this system for a long time. Dan has just never used
it, so it doesn't exist for him.
Right, but rsync is not a backup tool itself.
And again, bugger off on the inane ad hominem commentary. It does
nothing to support your argument, especially since you have no idea
what the F^$$ you're talking about.
D) It is metadata lossy
E) It's luck it it's working and not barfing over itself in OS X
Once again... this is the exact same point as A, B, and D.
No, it's not.
rsync is often very broken in OS X, and has several fatal bugs. These
are far different from the other points above.
It was created when strict POSIX was about everything you needed to cover.
No it was created for
They are working on it, and Apple does need to put more resources
into this, or someone needs to go in and put the resources into
getting the darwin version whipped into shape.
Apple already has a fine sync framework, they'd do best to admit
they're never going to get copyfile() working "properly" since the
engineers have point blank stated that they think doing things the
"Mac way" regarding metadata is in their minds "wrong".
But this all might be moot if Apple does indeed go down the
ZFS route, and gets ZFS to handle the metadata things that they
need, and gets the (near) live filesystem difference stream feature
worked into something useable.
No it doesn't change much of anything and demonstrates further ignorance.
--
-dhan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Shoop AIM: iWiring
Systems & Networks Architect http://www.ustsvs.com/
email@hidden http://www.iwiring.net/
1-714-363-1174
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/macos-x-server/email@hidden
