On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:28:56 AM UTC+10 [email protected] wrote: > You can try to adjust the number of threads, but apart from that I > think you fundamentally cannot do any better than this (neither with > other tools nor with major code changes to S3QL). > > Yep! Seem like you are correct: `clone-fs.py` (16 threads) does a faster download than `gsutil -m rsync...`. Still depressingly slow, though -- which I assume is a limit put in place by my ISP and/or Google. CPU cruising at 30% and link runs at same speed with 8 or 16 threads. FWIW, it does indeed seem that the current fastest option might in fact be to clone the fs then restore locally. The mount/rsync option is much slower. But I will know more one I have actually restored from the local copy.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "s3ql" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/s3ql/f995ef95-fd81-44e6-8ca4-0daa736ab3fen%40googlegroups.com.
