On Thu 01 Sep 2005, Xuehai Zhang wrote:
If (similar) tasks are run in parallel, then the data of the files being
handled may still be in the buffer cache so that it doesn't need to get
read in from disk again. This will save time...
I agree with you that caching effect might be the
Since it sounds like disk I/O is your limiting factor, you may wish to
look into updating multiple systems using a batch file. This requires
all the receiving systems to have identical files in the destination
hierarchy. You would first create a batch file by performing the
synchronization
On Wed 31 Aug 2005, xuehai zhang wrote:
results. Why the time of transferring the file to 2N nodes is shorter than
twice of the time of transferring the same file to N nodes? Does it make
If the network is not the bottleneck, then cpu or the disks are. If
(similar) tasks are run in parallel,
Paul,
Thanks for your response.
results. Why the time of transferring the file to 2N nodes is shorter than
twice of the time of transferring the same file to N nodes? Does it make
If the network is not the bottleneck, then cpu or the disks are.
The network is 100Mbps LAN.
If (similar)
Hi all,
I am new to rsync and I apologize in advance if my question is shallow.
I write a simple script to use rsync to transfer a big file (~600MB)from a single source to variable
number of destinations in a parallel way. When I transfer the file to 4 destination machines, I get
X overall
