Obviously self-promotional, but Parsyncfp?
https://github.com/hjmangalam/parsyncfp
There are other like scripted parallel rsyncs, but I like this one. ;)
Hjm
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023, 3:42 AM just subscribed for rsync-qa from bugzilla
via rsync wrote:
>
I made a bash script doing this in parallel, checks how many rsyncs are
running and then starts another 'concurrent one'. My parallel sessions
are against different servers. I doubt if it would make any sense doing
multiple sessions between the same two hosts. My single rsync sessions
was
On 26/01/14 18:03, L.A. Walsh wrote:
But multiple TCP connections are not used to load a single picture.
They are used
for separate items on the page. A single TCP stream CAN be very fast
and rsync
isn't close to hitting that limit.
The proof? Using 1Gb connections, smb/cifs could get
Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 25.01.2014 21:03, L.A. Walsh wrote:
If rsync already hitting over 200MB (even over 100MB)/s I'd agree that using
multiple TCP connections would help as they could be processed by different
cpu's on both ends. But since it doesn't even hit 100MB/s locally,
On 28.01.2014 04:26, L.A. Walsh wrote:
Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 25.01.2014 21:03, L.A. Walsh wrote:
If rsync already hitting over 200MB (even over 100MB)/s I'd agree that using
multiple TCP connections would help as they could be processed by different
cpu's on both ends. But
On 25.01.2014 21:03, L.A. Walsh wrote:
If rsync already hitting over 200MB (even over 100MB)/s I'd agree that using
multiple TCP connections would help as they could be processed by different
cpu's on both ends. But since it doesn't even hit 100MB/s locally, the
limit *isn't* TCP
samba-b...@samba.org wrote:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5124
--- Comment #5 from Andrew J. Kroll fo...@dr.ea.ms 2014-01-19 03:10:35 UTC ---
Another proven case is your typical modern web browser.
There is a very good reason why multiple connections are used to load in those
