[mdlug] mdlug Digest, Vol 88, Issue 7

[John Wiersba]

Given this use case (local to local copy), restarting is probably not a big concern, but it's definitely a advantage for rsync if you need it.  

However, cp -a *will* preserve hard links and the security context (albeit without reporting errors on failures).  You can use --preserve to get failures (see the info page for more details).

If there are special files that need to be copied, tar (or better, cpio) are probably better choices.


Message: 8
>Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:31:57 -0500
>From: "Carl T. Miller" <carl at carltm.com>
>To: "John Wiersba" <jrw32982 at yahoo.com>,    "MDLUG's Main discussion
>    list" <mdlug at mdlug.org>
>Subject: Re: [mdlug] mdlug Digest, Vol 88, Issue 6
>Message-ID:
>    <649859c7bc8204272f2fce177b0b8f2b.squirrel at mail.carltm.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>John Wiersba wrote:
>> I'm not sure I see the advantage of rsync vs. just plain old cp -a SOURCE
>> TARGET for this particular use case.
>
>I can think of two advantages.  First, if the process is
>interrupted at any time, you can just restart it and it
>will pick up where it left off.  Using cp or tar will
>require it to start from the beginning.  Second is that
>it will preserve hard links, perhaps saving a lot of
>disk space.
>
>c
>