On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:25 AM, CoolAtt NNA wrote:
> Hi ..
>
> Am using rsync to mirror all mailboxes to a backup server.
> I have configured rsync to run every 1 min. we have around 50 mailboxws for
> now.
> Plz advise if ok to run rsync every 1 min.
It depends on the mailbnox size, your hardwar
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Christopher Hawkins
wrote:
> Hi fellas -
>
> as a part of my rsync command line on the client, I get almost 2x the
> throughput on local gig ethernet. It was a huge improvment...
I saw the same sorts of improvements... approximately 300% over a 45
Mbps pipe wit
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Neal B wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Working a few servers that are transferring data across country with a 75ms
> delay on a GIGE connection. We can tune the tcp buffers on linux to improve
> the connections using iperf. Does rsync use the tcp buffers of the OS or
> does
From: Bas Bahlmann || Steady IT Systeembeheer
> I am using rsync for my customers to have disaster recovery off-site
> with files from a VMware Server (under Linux). All works very well, but
> when I defragment the VM's (once a week) or Exchange defragments it's
> datastore the disk layout changes
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Why don't they just use Unison?
Because it doesn't work well. It is seriously unreliable with large
files, on Linux or Windows. It also has a horrifying tendency to
corrupt its own state databases, lock up, or exit unexpectedly. It
also doesn
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Richard B.
Gilbert wrote:
> My machines run 24x7. They don't suck THAT much power.
A typical dual-socket server uses roughly 400 watts at idle. At a
rough US$0.10 per kWh, doubled for cooling, that's US$700 in power per
year. If you can save 50% of that by shutti
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> It still has to send the hashes, which can be slow for a large file.
> So it would be even better to cache on the sending side hashes of
> files on the receiving side, perhaps indexed by the receiving side's
> MD5 of the whole file.
The hashe
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Hash calculation is very fast; rsync has a negligible cpu consumption.
Hash calculation for the receiver is usually disk-bound, But rsync has
massive CPU consumption in certain cases. When using -Z on a fast
network. I have seen rsync becom
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> Remembering hashes doesn't make any difference to speed, if the
> bottleneck is the sending side.
Except that in the rsync pipeline, the reading the destination file to
get hashes happens BEFORE the sender reads its file. And the sender
calc
Your log file indicates that rsync is indeed working as designed
finding lots of data matches:
Literal data: 123736377 bytes
Matched data: 17889663500 bytes
This means that rsync only had to transfer 118 MB instead of 16+ GB.
It does this by trading CPU and disk operations for network bytes
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> AFAIK there is no way to see the actual transfer-rate of the data-stream
> between the 2 rsync processes.
OS-level tools can show the actual bytes transferred on the wire (e.g.
perfmon in Windows).
--
RPM
--
Please use reply-all
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
> For people who don't know what it does, it implements backup of open files on
> Windows with rsync.
> My hope is to get something that works so well to have it included it in the
> cwrsync-installer:
> http://www.itefix.no/i2/cwrsync
> Thei
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:33 PM, wrote:
>> Only copying changed files is *exactly* what ROBOCOPY is designed for.
>> This is even the default behavior. It uses
>> filename+size+modification_time to determine if two files are the
>> same. ROBOCOPY also has an enromous number of logging options.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Julian Pace Ross wrote:
> However your explanation made me realise why one 10GB uncompressed
> database.bak file (MSSQL) was not yielding any block matches at all... I
> contacted the admin for this db and surprise surprise, he insists on
> reindexing everyday...
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Hasanat Kazmi wrote:
> Hello,
> I have previously mailed on list that I am trying to port rsync to NT. I was
> wondering that whether CRC can be used to find check sums rather then
> rolling algorithm. I havnt found any document on web comparing rolling
> algorithm
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Julian Pace Ross wrote:
> Thanks Ryan!
> In fact I found it's a combination of factors you mentioned... i.e. a
> compressed SQL .bak file, so contrary to what I thought, the fuzzy file was
> indeed being found but no matches were being found in the file... thanks
>
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Julian Pace Ross wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a file that changes slightly in size every day and has the timestamp
> appended to it.. for example on the 14th may:
> MybackedUpFileBlabla_200905140219.bak
> This is transferred by rsync to another server.
> The next day that
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:40 AM, David de Lama wrote:
> There are two opportunities for information loss in the ACL conversion:
>
> - PSIX ACLs support only read, write, and execute permissions. Thus,
> aspects of Windows ACLs that cannot be represented by a combination of
> read, write, and execu
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM, wrote:
> I've looked at robocopy, but it doesn't appear to have any
> mechanism to skip equal files and only copy files that have changed,
> even if it copies the whole file instead of a delta. (perhaps
> something could be rigged with the archive bit, though rdif
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Gero Pflanz wrote:
> Is it sufficient to change only those 2 parameters ?
> Will this also change the buffersize af the other host (via rsync
> communication)? In the logs I do not get any information that
> the sockopts parameter is changing something (although I
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Boniforti Flavio wrote:
> Is there any way to know *in advance* if using or not using "-z" could
> be the better solution?
I don't think so. You need to run your tasks on your own hardware and
network to see where the bottlenecks are.
If the task is CPU-bound, tur
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Daniel.Li wrote:
>> Upgrade to 3.0.5 (on both ends)
>
> OK, besides this, is there any other way to improve the network
> performance? some thing like change the option or what?
This is a well-known performance issue in rsync that was specifically
addressed in v3.0
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Mag Gam wrote:
> it works. But takes hours to do it. Was wondering if there was a faster way
http://rob.sun3.org/misc/parallelizing-rsync-processes/
--
RPM
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change opti
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Mag Gam wrote:
> ZFS on fuse is just too slow. I suppose I will wait for ZFS on Linux
> (pipe dream) or try to switch to Solaris 10 on x86
>
There will never be ZFS in the Linux kernel because of license
incompatibilites. The linux answer to ZFS is btrfs, which is
You can switch to a filesystem that supports transparent encrytpion
(Reiser, ZFS, NTFS, others depending on your OS). Rsync would be
completely unaware of any file-system level compression in that case.
Or you can use gzip with the --rsyncable option. Not all distributions
of gzip support --rsynca
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Ryan Malayter wrote:
> You can switch to a filesystem that supports transparent encrytpion
> (Reiser, ZFS, NTFS, others depending on your OS). Rsync would be
> completely unaware of any file-system level compression in that case.
Oops. I meant &qu
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Tevfik Karagülle wrote:
> You may be interested in the cwRsync FAQ http://www.itefix.no/i2/node/11313
> about using RoboCopy for transferring windows file attributes/permissions:
>
I have recently started using ICACLS.EXE to dump permissions to a file
on the sour
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> I'm going to try the bandwidth limit and retries tomorrow. I wanted to see if
> there were some other suggestions.
We're using the latest cwRsync in daemon mode over IPsec to transfer
about 100 GB per day from several sources to our DR
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:46 AM, MW wrote:
> Anyway, I will try the --inplace option but cold
> you explain what you mean by "VSS snapshots" please?
Many modern operating systems have a "snapshot" function, which allows
you to save a point-in-time copy of the state of a file system for in
a space
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM, MW wrote:
> Hi - I'm backing up a Windows client which has a number of Outlook mail
> archives (pst files) and annoyingly whenever you open Outlook it updates the
> modification dates of all pst files - even if you don't change any of the
> emails contained in the
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Hai Zaar wrote:
> I have the following situation: file2 on remote host and file1 on
> localhost. file1 and file2 are mostly the same. Simply running
> rsync remotehost:file2 file2
> will actually transfer the entire file. But I would like to use the
> factt that I
31 matches
Mail list logo
