On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Yves Dorfsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >>> Hmmm... rsync is so efficient that I have to wonder what kind of >>> extreme case would make this attractive. I'd be so afraid that one >>> transaction >> >> For backup and redundancy purposes, I have an NFS server which I rsync to >> local disk every night. It takes approx 6 hours for 1TB over direct >> attached GB. > > Just curious here: do you think it takes so long because you have a zillion > files in there, or because it transfers a lot of data over a relatively slow > link ? >
The former. I've had multiple experiences where a rsync of a large FS on a busy or slow machine would die or take out the machine before any actual data was transferred. rsync has some scale issues and isn't the appropriate tool for every situation. -n -- ------------------------------------------- nathan hruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> metaphysically wrinkle-free ------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
