<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: xcopy vs. rsync</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:27:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andreas</title>
		<link>http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/comment-page-1/#comment-768</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/#comment-768</guid>
		<description>As far as I understand it, the big advantage of rsync are delta backups - if only some stuff is changed in a file, rsync copies only the difference and not the whole file. The only, but probably important, case where this is usefull is, when backuping Outlook PST files offsite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I understand it, the big advantage of rsync are delta backups &#8211; if only some stuff is changed in a file, rsync copies only the difference and not the whole file. The only, but probably important, case where this is usefull is, when backuping Outlook PST files offsite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Bell</title>
		<link>http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/comment-page-1/#comment-155</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Bell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/#comment-155</guid>
		<description>John: thanks for the input. But rsync considers files as binary data, no? Do you mean dealing with special characters in file names? That&#039;s something I hadn&#039;t considered.

I ultimately went with xcopy in my Windows environment, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John: thanks for the input. But rsync considers files as binary data, no? Do you mean dealing with special characters in file names? That&#8217;s something I hadn&#8217;t considered.</p>
<p>I ultimately went with xcopy in my Windows environment, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/comment-page-1/#comment-154</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jc-bell.com/blog/2007/09/22/xcopy-vs-rsync/#comment-154</guid>
		<description>you failed to mention that rsync doesn&#039;t have extended charater support out of the box when used on Windows. It requires some extra work if you are using cyrillic charecters or non-ascii charecters in your environment.

based on this and a few other articles I think I&#039;m going to start using xcopy in pure windows environments.

thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you failed to mention that rsync doesn&#8217;t have extended charater support out of the box when used on Windows. It requires some extra work if you are using cyrillic charecters or non-ascii charecters in your environment.</p>
<p>based on this and a few other articles I think I&#8217;m going to start using xcopy in pure windows environments.</p>
<p>thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
