> Whether the cost in disk activity is worth it If the comparison is with using Git, then it is clear you're not so resource constrained that you can't counten

> Whether the cost in disk activity is worth it If the comparison is with using Git, then it is clear you're not so resource constrained that you can't countenance running MD5s, since Git would run shasum. I think in our current laissez-faire climate w.r.t. security, I think recommending leaving security on the basis of saving a few cycles isn't very wise. > It does not assume the version on the remote machine is "exactly how you left it" I was ambiguous and sloppy, sorry. It doesn't not check for changes in a secure way, but assumes that, as long as the meta-data for the file matches, the content is as you left it. When Linus built git, he specifically did so around sha1 to ensure that you ensure the data you think you have in the file, you do in fact have. rsync --checksum is thus a reasonable replacement for git deployment, but rsync --no-checksum isn't, imho. Sorry if I was vague or misleading, thanks for the clarification.