Re: Bugs and features

[Matt Armstrong]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 07:07:47AM +0200, Adrian Phillips wrote:
> I agree with Mark, a rsync section is unneccesary. BUT, having a rsync
> flag for copy could possibly be interesting for large files over slow
> links. An example, virus pattern files are becoming larger and larger,
> you want to update an updated pattern file to several servers over
> slower links, copy would do a straight copy, but using the rsync flag,
> the copy would make use of rsync's protocol. Note, I'm not talking
> about "running" rsync here, but talking about using librsync (if it
> exists, there has been talk of it on the mailing lists at least) on
> either end so that only the changes would be sent over the wire.

Yes, embedding the rsync algorithm as an optional way to copy files
would be the only sensible way to marry cfengine & rsync.  This would
allow the efficiency of rsync (over slowish links with slightly changing
data) with the authentication/security already present in cfengine.

If the rsync algorithm is a big win, it is a shame to have to hack up
automated ssh logins and run it in a shell just to use it securely from
cfengine.

Then again, the cases where rsync is a big win are probably not all that
common in cfengine setups.

-- 
matt