Re: Dired C idea

[Arthur Miller]

Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes:

>>> I would like to see some benchmark figures first. For example, I'm not sure
>>> that rsync performs better when the target directory does not exist yet, and
>>> there's nothing to sync.
>>
>> I made some comparison between "cp -pr" and "rsync -pr" on shell level. [...]
>> "rsync -pr" is slower than "cp -pr".
>>
>
> Yes, nothing can beat cp;

Is cp really bottleneck at all? Isn't it more likely IO that is limiting
operation?

> to cp because it does more than just copying files.  It is faster only when
> copying files from/to a remote host when some files already exist on both 
> sides
> (which is its original purpose).
>
> But rsync is also much more powerful tool compared to cp, even when it is used
> locally: as Richard said it can resume an aborted/partial copy, it can
> synchronize two directories, it has options to include or exclude file 
> patterns,
> it has a progress indicator, and so forth.  So as the manpage says, it is an
> "improved copy command".

rsync is nice, it would certainly be nice to have an built-in Emacs
interface to it, if someone has time to write it.