Re: rsync backup performance question

2003-06-22 Thread jw schultz
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:42:46AM +0200, Ron Arts wrote: Dear all, I am implementing a backup system, where thousands of postgreSQL databases (max 1 Gb in size) on as much clients need to be backed up nightly across ISDN lines. Because of the limited bandwidth, rsync is the prime

Re: rsync backup performance question

2003-06-22 Thread Ron Arts
jw schultz wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:42:46AM +0200, Ron Arts wrote: Dear all, I am implementing a backup system, where thousands of postgreSQL databases (max 1 Gb in size) on as much clients need to be backed up nightly across ISDN lines. Because of the limited bandwidth, rsync is the

Re: rsync backup performance question

2003-06-22 Thread Ron Arts
jw schultz wrote: You have a couple of points wrong. The receiver generates the block checksums. If you are pushing that would be the server but if you are pulling it is the client. In 2.5.6 and earlier the transmitted block checksums are 6 bytes per block with a default block size of 700 bytes

Re: rsync backup performance question

2003-06-22 Thread jw schultz
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:20:34PM +0200, Ron Arts wrote: jw schultz wrote: [snip] Would it be feasible to have a separate process pre-creating blocksums during the day in separate files (ending in ,rsync)? Or, for example, while writing the changed file, the receiver would precompute and

Re: rsync backup performance question

2003-06-22 Thread Ron Arts
jw schultz wrote: [snip.. and thanks for all your comments] Rsync doesn't perform well on non-local filesystems. Really? Won't gigabit ethernet help for NFS, or maybe Samba? I only have to rsync a relatively low number of files, so no large directory scans. Ron -- Netland Internet Services