Re: rsync shows poor throughput vs. scp

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 03:29:12PM -0400, Marty Mulligan wrote: > Why is scp /so much faster/ than rsync here? Is there anything I can do > to improve the speed of these transfers? > > Fwiw, this is the rsync command I'm issuing: > > rsync -azL --whole-file --stats --progress --delete sender::m

RE: rsync shows poor throughput vs. scp

Marty Mulligan  wrote:    Thanks for your suggestions.  I'll try to put together an rsync call with a more explicit set of options, although I was under the impressions that by having the "dont compress" option set in the conf file on the server, the -z option in the call from the host was

Re: rsync shows poor throughput vs. scp

Thanks for your suggestions.  I'll try to put together an rsync call with a more explicit set of options, although I was under the impressions that by having the "dont compress" option set in the conf file on the server, the -z option in the call from the host was ignored (which begs the questi

RE: rsync shows poor throughput vs. scp

You should get some better answers, but a couple of points jump out at me. If the files are already compressed, "small" changes result in very different files, so the business of reading both the target and the source to find common stuff is kinda counterproductive.   Also the -z (compres

Re: rsync shows poor throughput vs. scp

Oh, and in case it helps: # uname -a Linux mydomain.com 2.6.10-1.771_FC2 #1 Mon Mar 28 00:50:14 EST 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux # rsync --version rsync version 2.6.2 protocol version 28 Copyright (C) 1996-2004 by Andrew Tridgell and others Capabilities: 64-bit fil