Amazing. Connecting to the NFS server directly instead of through a mount results in much better transfers. Thank you. It looks like just the updated portions of the files are zoomed across.
A dumb question, but why? Does the rsync daemon on the server side have anything to do with this? Or does the NFS client act as if the mount is a "local" directory and tries to do read and writes just as it would on disk? Anyways, it works - so I'm happy. Thanks again for your help Anban. On 10/28/05, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Anban Mestry wrote: > > rsync -avtz --no-whole-file \test1\ \mnt\test2\ > > You don't want to do that, because --no-whole-file optimizes rsync's > socket I/O at the expense of disk I/O, which means that you're making > things less efficient when the "connection" between the sender and the > receiver is a local pipe. The use of -z for a "local" copy is also > wasteful because you're using CPU to optimize the transfer of data over > a connection that is faster than the disk I/O, even when uncompressed. > > Your best configuration is to avoid updating via NFS and instead connect > to the NFS server directly so that rsync can update the files on a local > disk. That allows rsync to optimize the network traffic. > > rsync -avtz /test1/ remoteNFShost:/test2/ > > If that is not possible, the method that uses the least disk I/O for a > local copy is --whole-file and (to a much smaller extent) --inplace. > That still writes out the entire file over NFS for each update, though, > but it does at least avoid having rsync do a full-file read followed by > a full-file write (which is what occurs with --no-whole-file). > > ..wayne.. > -- Shameless publicity -- > http://oranjia.blogspot.com < -- -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html