On 3/9/06, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 14:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > it just hovers at about 300kb/s.... I would expect that when the file > > > listing is sent, for there to be a heavy load on the network at that > > > time, and then some heavy cpu work, and then more load on the network > > > as it hits files that > > > needs to backup..... > > rsync is surprisingly inefficient at file transfers. It's often several > times slower than even tar over ssh. try moving a big (several times larger > than RAM) over the network, using rsync, tar over ssh, and tar over netcat. > rsync will be by far the slowest.
I am doing some backups across the WAN from backuppc to a Windows machine using rsyncd, and also find that our backup rate seems to hover just over 300kb/s. Given that I am backing decent number of large files, it is taking anywhere from 700-1000 minutes to do a full backup! I've tested bandwidth between the 2 networks and other tools are able to easily saturate the network at 1500kb/s+ (T1 speed). CPU utilization isn't an issue at all in my case, it is next to 0 on both the backuppc machine and the Windows machine. So the question is: why is rsyncd so slow at sending the data? I can try the --whole-file option as someone else suggested, but I don't see how it would help as the files being backed up are typically new files so they should be sent whole anyway, right? -Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
