Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

OK, my apologies for hijacking this thread, I haven't been on a mailing list in forever but I will apply proper etiquette. Can I just ask what you mean by "top post" though? On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:25 PM Greg Rundlett (freephile) < g...@freephile.com> wrote: > Hi Anthony! Welcome! > > You can

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

Hi Anthony! Welcome! You can just reply to the list in general, but it doesn't hurt to reply-all You should always start a new topic with a new thread ;-). And never top post (unless you're me and using a phone) ~ Greg On Jun 27, 2017 8:00 PM, "R. Anthony Lomartire"

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

Also sorry idk if there is an intro thread or anything, but I've been a lurker for a while this has been my first actual post I think. I don't know if I should reply all or just send my reply to the GNHLUG email address? Anyways just quickly, I'm Tony and I'm in ad tech. We use machine learning

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

No offense or anything but I find it amusing that one of the most active threads on this mailer has been about copying a bit of data :D On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:29 PM Matt Minuti wrote: > My muscle memory always puts the flags "-avz" (sometimes I even remember > to add a

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

My muscle memory always puts the flags "-avz" (sometimes I even remember to add a P in there), so there must have been one point in time where you had to specify compression. Might still be the case. On Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 12:02 PM mark wrote: > My mistake. I wrote encryption

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

I typically use rsync instead of cp when I can. There can be issues (and there's too much below I know): lots of small files can slow things down because of the comparision (checksum, dates, names). zfs send/receive uses a different method for remote replication that avoids this. If you're on

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

My mistake. I wrote encryption when I meant compression, as I belive rsync always compresses--but I could be mistaken about that, too! Mark On Jun 27, 2017 11:55 AM, "Tom Buskey" wrote: > rsync doesn't encrypt if there's no remote, as in this case. > > To be pedantic, rsync to

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

rsync doesn't encrypt if there's no remote, as in this case. To be pedantic, rsync to remotes uses ssh by default but it can use rsh which has no encryption. Some older versions of SSH allowed you to specify the encryption. I recall using XOR encryption for faster operation where security was

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

rsync it is, thanks to all. --charlie On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, mark wrote: > Locally, cp is faster because you cannot make rsync not encrypt, but the > restart-from-where-it-stopped feature of rsync makes it worth the wait. > > Mark > > On Jun 26, 2017 3:18 PM,

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

Locally, cp is faster because you cannot make rsync not encrypt, but the restart-from-where-it-stopped feature of rsync makes it worth the wait. Mark On Jun 26, 2017 3:18 PM, "Charles Farinella" < cfarine...@appropriatesolutions.com> wrote: > We need to copy a large (200+GB) directory from one

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

rsync -van --stats --exclude images/ --exclude other_big_dir/ /var/source/ /var/destination/ -v verbose -a archive mode (preserves perms., recursive, etc.) -n dry-run Make sure to use trailing slashes if transferring directories Use excludes to get it working before you move the biggest

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

Yeah, dd is wrong, I'll play with cp and rsync and pick one. Thanks. --charlie Charlie Farinella Systems Administrator Appropriate Solutions, Inc. 1-603-924-6079 On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote: > 200 GB on locally mounted filesystems just isn't all

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

rsync -a source destination is all it should take. On Jun 26, 2017 3:25 PM, "Dan Garthwaite" wrote: > Ditto Ken on two points: 200GB isn't that large (I've worked in an > animation studio) and rsync is restartable. I'd go with rsync. > > It has a dizzying array of options

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

I definitely would use rsync. I regularly copy 2-3 TB from between filesystems, both locally and over networks, using it. cp would work, but rsync is better if you do need to interrupt and restart or if you just need to synchronize changes. On 6/26/2017 3:11 PM, Charles Farinella wrote: > We

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

Ditto Ken on two points: 200GB isn't that large (I've worked in an animation studio) and rsync is restartable. I'd go with rsync. It has a dizzying array of options and even more finer points. You don't need the rsync daemon. Try to use full paths. Include trailing slashes if copying

Re: Need to copy a 200GB directory

200 GB on locally mounted filesystems just isn't all *THAT* much. I'm not quite sure how you'd use 'dd', but cp or rsync should do the trick just fine. Note that rsync has the added benefit of being able to, essentially, start from where you failed -- but I usually reserve that for network