On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 05:46:41AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:49:09PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> >
> > Hi rsync team,
> >
> > I thought that rsync would try to overlap computing and IO on both
> > machines.
> >
> > I'm rsyncing a large tree (18G) and am keeping an eye on that.
> > Suddenly my side completely stopped. No IO visible, no CPU
> > time spent. The otherside was doing 100% CPU. Then the other
> > side started to do disk IO. Then suddenly the activities moved
> > over to my side, and I saw things moving again in the "-v --progress"
> > output.
>
> This indeed would produce the effect you describe. 400MB
> (400Mb == 50MB) would take a while to generate the block
> sums and then another larger chunk of time to match those
> with rolling checksums. Your description makes it sound
> like you were sending, the 100% CPU interval it was probably
correction... ^^^^^^^ receiving
> hashing the block checksums prior to doing the rolling
> checksum match (disk i/o).
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
