https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9783
--- Comment #4 from Kilian CAVALOTTI <[email protected]> 2013-05-13 12:46:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > what result does remote scp vs local-copy-on-sshfs give (i.e what is the > > impact > > of sshfs) ? > > They are the comparable, the impact of sshfs is minimal. I used the same SSH > options to conduct the test over a 10GbE link, and checked the speed of the > transfer using the NIC counters. I can't reproduce the tests right now, but on > top of my head, the numbers were: Precisely: 1. [host1 ~]$ scp host0:/path/to/file /path/to/file : 175 MB/s 2. [host1 ~]$ cp /sshfs/path/to/file /path/to/file : 120 MB/s 3. [host1 ~]$ rsync -av host0:/path/to/file /path/to/file : 174 MB/s 3. [host1 ~]$ rsync -av /sshfs/path/to/file /path/to/file : 90 MB/s The test file is a 36GB file, generated from user data. SSH options are the same in all cases, and use the arcfour cipher. All rates values measured with bwm-ng (http://www.gropp.org/?id=projects&sub=bwm-ng) during the steady phase of the transfer. Destination file has been removed between each test, and the buffer cache has been cleaned with "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches). rsync's behavior is definitely different when using a local sshfs mountpoint as a source rather than copying from a remote server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
