Jim C. Nasby wrote:
What's rsync give you?
I won't rsync them 33Gb again :) but here goes with my home dir over USB2:
rdiff-backup is 7 minutes faster than rsync which is good.
I attached the re-sync of this morning too.
rdiff-backup -v5 --print-statistics /home/steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gigabit link SATA Raid 10
could you explain what this means and provide more details?
you speak of 2 systems interconnected via gigabit - both (or just one of them)
having sata raid10 ?
They are identical and connected via a throw away backend with NO other
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Steve Clement wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
rdiff-backup --remote-schema '%s' src 'rdiff-backup --server'::dst
Well ssh is not the best file carrier, scp for instance is slow as...
but there is a HPN Patch:
i think you missed my point... remote rdiff-backup is slow even
So if rdiff is faster than rsync, what's the problem?
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:59:26AM +0200, Steve Clement wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
What's rsync give you?
I won't rsync them 33Gb again :) but here goes with my home dir over USB2:
rdiff-backup is 7 minutes faster than rsync which
Looks like something is slow. We're syncing a 320gb mirror over a 1mbit
Internet line in 11 hours. Strange.
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Steve Clement wrote:
This is over a gigabit link SATA Raid 10 , conclude for yourselves.
--[ Session statistics ]--
StartTime
even need a
crossover cable but just an ordinary gbit cable
regards
roland
- Original Message -
From: Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jason Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: rdiff-backup-users@nongnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff
PROTECTED]; Jason Faulkner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; rdiff-backup-users@nongnu.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup performance stats.
On Thu, 25 May 2006, roland wrote:
BTW, are you sure you're getting a gigabit connection? I don't think you
can
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Steve Clement wrote:
This is over a gigabit link SATA Raid 10 , conclude for yourselves.
i'm guessing you're saying the results are bad...
initial network backup is well known to be slow... in fact it's slow as
soon as you use separate processes, as can be demonstrated
