Backup from Window$ to Linux box: rsyncd vs folder share

From Rsync Man Page:

rsync is a program that behaves in much the same way that rcp does, but has many more options and uses the rsync remote-update protocol to greatly speed up file transfers when the destination file is being updated.

The rsync remote-update protocol allows rsync to transfer just the differences between two sets of files across the network connection, using an efficient checksum-search algorithm described in the technical report that accompanies this package.

Some of the additional features of rsync are:

support for copying links, devices, owners, groups, and permissions
exclude and exclude-from options similar to GNU tar
a CVS exclude mode for ignoring the same files that CVS would ignore
can use any transparent remote shell, including ssh or rsh
does not require root privileges
pipelining of file transfers to minimize latency costs
support for anonymous or authenticated rsync daemons (ideal for mirroring)

My question was not fine... Excuse me.
- First case:
on Window$: rsyncd - node "backup" with path "d:/data/";
on Linux: "rsync -a ip::backup ./backup/".

- Second case:
on Window$: "d:/data" folder shared (mounted in /mnt/fileserver on Linux);
on Linux: "rsync -a /mnt/fileserver/ ./backup/".

What's the best way: use a shared folder or access rsyncd?

My question was not fine... Excuse me.

- First case:

on Window$: rsyncd - node "backup" with path "d:/data/";

on Linux: "rsync -a ip::backup ./backup/".

- Second case:

on Window$: "d:/data" folder shared (mounted in /mnt/fileserver on Linux);

on Linux: "rsync -a /mnt/fileserver/ ./backup/".

What's the best way: use a shared folder or access rsyncd?

I suppose that the first case gives better performance as you talk to rsync daemon directly, while the second case utilizes samba in addition.

Testing both scenarios should give the best answer.

And what do you think about managing, security, etc...
I point these... ( "+" means good, "-" bad)

8 network activity)
- broken link (dead)
+ manage from domain

8

(something's wrong with last post... I redo in an other way)
So, and what do you think about managing, security, etc...

I point these... ( "+" means good, "-" bad)

::: SMBFS :::
+ inside Window$
- work made on Linux (network activity)
- broken link (dead)
+ manage from domain

::: RSYND :::
- outside Window$ (cygwin)
+ work made on Window$
+ specialized (873/tcp)
- manual configuration

You can also add performance and multi-platform support as evaluation criteria.

Actually, that kind of evaluation is totally dependent on your environment and what you want to achieve.

Rgrds Tev