On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:05:09 -0700 jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rsync is not an efficient local copy utility. It can be
used for local copying but local and high-bandwidth network
speed is sacrificed for low-bandwidth performance and for
data integrity.
I've been surprised at how fast
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 07:46:05PM -0700, Ben Escoto wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:05:09 -0700 jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rsync is not an efficient local copy utility. It can be
used for local copying but local and high-bandwidth network
speed is sacrificed for low-bandwidth
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:28:21 -0700 jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The referenced mail message describes the benchmark as:
| The directory backed up or restored had 1 1-byte files
That isn't a very good benchmark. 10,000 files is not that
many and being 1 byte means that all that is
Not sure if this is not the proper channel (forum) for this, but I need some
help.
We have been using rsync in various ways on various platforms.
Linux-SGI (IRIX)-MacOSX
In all cases the actual LOCAL file transfer seems to be limited to 10MB/sec
from disk to disk. Always copy whole files.
I'm sorry that you find rsync's local performance
disappointing but that isn't what rsync is really for.
If you do find specific enhancements that can be made that
won't adversely affect portability we'd be glad to hear of
them.
JW - one thing that occurs to me is to wonder if it would be
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:46:42PM -0400, Jim Salter wrote:
I'm sorry that you find rsync's local performance
disappointing but that isn't what rsync is really for.
If you do find specific enhancements that can be made that
won't adversely affect portability we'd be glad to hear of
them.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:35:01AM -0400, Dave Mangelsdorf (CBIZ Tech) wrote:
Not sure if this is not the proper channel (forum) for this, but I need some
help.
We have been using rsync in various ways on various platforms.
Linux-SGI (IRIX)-MacOSX
In all cases the actual LOCAL
