Lapo - With this:
> > In that case, for files not too long, it may be "better" > > CPU-wise to use > > the normal check for date instead of the full block hash checking... did you mean the -u switch? or something else? > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris McKeever > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 4:03 PM > To: 'Lapo Luchini'; _Chris McKeever_; rsync > Subject: RE: Rsync Performance In Windows > > > Thanks for your response... > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > _Chris McKeever_ wrote: > > > > >The linux machine connecting to the windows rsync daemon > > has a very low > > >performance hit when the session is running (see below). > > However, the > > >windows machine, which has a much faster CPU hits a CPU > > usage of 100%. > > > > > rsync CPU usage is not symmetric, this could be "normal". > > But it has spikes of 100% or a continuous use of 100%? > > as soon as a remote server connects to it, it spikes and > sticks at 100% > > > Are you working in a local LAN? > > yes, connected via point-to=point t-1 lines > > > Is transfer imited by LAN speed? > to a degree > by HDD speed? > by CPU speed? > seems on the windows machine it is the CPU > > > In that case, for files not too long, it may be "better" > > CPU-wise to use > > the normal check for date instead of the full block hash checking... > > I may give the date check a go tonight and see if help > remedies the issues. > > > > > - -- > > Lapo 'Raist' Luchini > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP & X.509 keys available) > > http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796) > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com > > > > iQA/AwUBPu4fbmiYgizI8lL7EQL0tACgm8hpX0koJl2NNfNA2fq6T36p93oAn0G4 > > Qq8ID5Wg+cq7BLW4f/u6SWZx > > =JBLS > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html