On 07/15 09:53 , Les Mikesell wrote: > Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > > > As a noteworthy data point, when making an initial copy of files (not using > > backuppc, just plain tar or rsync); tar is 2x-4x faster than rsync, > > presumably due to all of rsync's calculating overhead. > > Are you comparing a tar to a tar archive to rsync or 'tar -c | ssh ... > tar -x'?
The latter. > The slow part of the process should be creating the new > directory tree and file structure. Rsync shouldn't do a lot of > calculating when the target is empty, but it does (at least the old > versions) read and transfer the entire source directory tree before > starting any file transfers which can add some time to the operation > particularly where there are a lot of small files. Interesting. I might have vaguely known some of that but never correlated it. Thank you. I think I can see how it might be a bit slower to create the directory trees then transfer the files, rather than create the files and indices in a more sequential fashion. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
