Re: [rdiff-backup-users] feature suggestions

[Jakob Unterwurzacher]

aurbain schrieb:
> Philippe Froidevaux wrote:
> >  
> >
> > Am I completly wrong ? If yes tell me, it were effectivly more easier to
> > mount everything on the backup server :)
> >   
> I can see that the added traffic of the directory searches might make 
> the method slower, but  I found this 
> http://www.howtoforge.com/sshfs_rdiff_backup which says the sshfs method 
> is a little faster.  Even if sshfs were a little slower, I'd take the 
> hit for the simplicity of not having a client to maintain.

The sshfs method probably is faster on a fast (i.e. gigabit LAN) 
network. Looking at the IPs used here 
http://www.howtoforge.com/sshfs_rdiff_backup (they are private ones, 
192.168.0.10 etc.) testing was done on a fast LAN.
But IMO it can't be faster on "normal" links that are a lot slower than
your disk.

There is a reason rsync-servers exist, for the same reason there is the
rdiff-backup server.
It computes block-checksums for changed files *without* transferring the
contents over the net. Then the client decides what needs to be
transferred - only the changed blocks.
With sshfs every changed file has to be transferred in full for
checksumming, then the changed parts are transferred (again...). This 
will hurt you badly for large files with small changes.

Greetings,
Jakob