On 06/20 03:57 , Holger Parplies wrote: > Carl W. Soderstrom wrote on 2018-06-14 16:03:24 -0400 [Re: [BackupPC-users] > Slow local backup]: > > On 06/14 03:38 , Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > On 6/14/2018 3:27 PM, Michael Stowe wrote: > > > > Why are you using rsyncd over the loopback instead of ??? rsync? > > > > > > Mainly because that's the way all of my other clients are being backed > > > up [...] > > > > I've always used tar for local backups. The advantage of rsync is greater in > > bandwidth-constrained environments because it saves moving whole files over > > the network. However, if the file needs to be read anyway to see if anything > > has changed, then nothing is saved because the local machine is the same as > > the remote machine. > > well, mostly true. You still save copying large amounts of data from one > process address space to another and possible some context switches. While > that may not make rsync *faster* than tar on local backups, it might mean > it's not much slower. It probably depends on your setup. And it probably > has low enough impact not to worry about it.
Thanks for the responses on this, you have some very good knowledge which I've managed to forget over the years. I remember once a long time ago, comparing the speed of an initial backup and finding that tar was 3x-4x faster than rsync for the first data transfer. That showed me how much overhead there was in rsync, and that it may be better to go with tar for at least some backup cases. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
