Re: rsync vs. cvsup benchmarks

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> > Just use rsync, and shut up about it already.
>
> What are you people blabering about?

Fair question, simple answer.

Not wanting to throw a useful tool out on specious grounds.

> cvsup SUCKS.

Not my field of expertise. Google 'Escort Services'.

> not the idea, but
> the language it is implemented in.  and cvsup inherits the suckage.  as 
> simple as that.  if it was written in a portable language, nobody would 
> bother using rsync.  vince's benchmarks were just to establish one 
> realisation: that rsync is not significantly worse than cvsup.  end of 
> story.  move on.

?? the *language* [1]?

'inherits the suckage'? (so much for *that* view of birth control.

;-)

'..nobody would *bother* using rsync.' [2] ??

'..establish one realisation' ???

'realisation' indeed...

Snort enough dried horeshit up your nose and you could come to believe 
that the whole damn WORLD stinks!

But that's only from the observation point of your *own nose*.
It doesn't make it so.


Give this a think instead:

HAMMER fs is expected to deliver capabilities that can reduce the 
workload required to ascertain what is/was 'of interest' as-at a 
specified tag and/or point in time.

Built-in to the fs.

*But neither cvsup/csup nor rsync as they presently stand are aware of 
that, nor equipped to take advantage of it.*

So the bottom line is that a new 'none of the above' utility could be a 
very good thing to have.

Especially if the client fs is other-than HAMMER fs.

Until such time as that animal is coded, it just *might* be easier to 
adapt cvsup/csup than rsync.

Embarassing?

Or an inspiration to go off and code that tool?

There is precedent in Plan9's specialized fs'en. No CVS repository 
needed per se. But please - keep the feet on the matching legs..

:-)

Bill


[1] See csup. In C.

[2] cvsup/csup affecteth not rsync's utility one wit. Nor the reverse. 
Each is good at what it does best.