John Pettitt wrote: > Brendan Simon wrote: >> I thought rsync is supposed to be more efficient than a raw copy, but >> obviously not. I'm presuming it is rsync that is issue here. >> Would rsyncd improve the speed? >> Maybe it would be faster with nfs/tar but I'm a little concerned >> about security ? >> >> How can I get my Linux backups to be at least as fast as the Windows >> backups. >> >> Thanks heaps, >> Brendan. > > your windows box has 1/10th the number of files - file size is a big > driver in performance (rsync and smb) lost of small files = slow. If > you compare apples to apples with the same data set rsync is usually > faster if you have checksum caching on because it doesn't need to > re-read the data on the server and it's not constrained by line speed.
OK. One of my linux boxes (old distro) does not support the --checksum-seed option, but I could probably compile a backport version from a later distro. . . . . . DONE! I how have --checksum-seed on all linux hosts :) I also noticed the --checksum option for rsync, which would definitely slow things down, but that is not specified in my config and I presume it is not the default. Is --checksum the default for rsync? So I'm thinking that --checksum-seed is only necessary if --checksum is specified. Is that a correct assumption? And if --checksum is not used to detect an out of date file, then presumably only time/date/size is used which should be quite fast, right? Thanks, Brendan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
