Toni Van Remortel wrote:
> Toni Van Remortel wrote:
>> Anyway, I'm preparing a separate test setup now, to be able to do
>> correct tests (so both BackupPC and an rsync tree are using data from
>> the same time).
>> Test results will be here tomorrow.
>>
> So that is today.
>
> BackupPC full dump, with patch which removed --ignore-times for a full
> backup:
> Done: 507 files, 50731819 bytes
> full backup complete
> real 13m39.796s
> user 0m4.232s
> sys 0m0.556s
> Network IO used: 620MB
>
> 'rsync -auvH --ignore-times' on the same data:
> sent 48 bytes received 108845 bytes 72595.33 bytes/sec
> total size is 54915491 speedup is 504.31
> real 0m16.978s
> user 0m0.480s
> sys 0m0.468s
> Network IO used: 12.5MB
>
>
> Big difference.
Was the previous backuppc full exactly the same as the local target of
the stock rsync or had backupc been doing incrementals over a period
when files were changing and the stock rsync run was updating the same
place? Backuppc will transfer anything changed since its last full.
I'm not sure if this is affected by setting multi-level incrementals or not.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
