News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rsync's defaults are not always enough by dedicate on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @06:12AM (#44168314)
Man, reading this just makes me wonder again why -c (checksum) isn't the default in rsync by now, especially with SSDs everywhere. Is it really just about that tiny bit of speed?
Re:Rsync's defaults are not always enough by 0rzech on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @06:19AM (#44168351)
Checksums are slow on HDDs and using SSDs for backups is a bad idea, particularly for cold backups, due to data longevity and the tendency for SSDs to experience sudden total failures instead of gradual degradation.
Re:Rsync's defaults are not always enough by Aachen on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @08:28AM (#44169254)
The -c makes it do more reads, though, not unnecessary writes

Degradation won't get worse except when a file changed without metadata having been modified, but then that's exactly what you want

Re:Rsync's defaults are not always enough by 0rzech on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @09:56AM (#44170226)
Yes, but it's orthogonal to my comment.
Re:Rsync's defaults are not always enough by kissgyorgy on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @06:30AM (#44168401)
It's not a tiny bit at all. For checksum, the whole file need to be read beforehand, the metadata is just a quick lookup. It's order of magnitude slower and eats I/O too.
Re:Rsync's defaults are not always enough by account42 on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @08:28AM (#44169253)
Because changing the defaults of command-line tools is generally a shitty thing to do.

And the speed difference is only tiny for tiny files.