On 5/3/2011 8:55 AM, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Joerg Schilling
<joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
But this is most likely slower than star and does rsync support sparse files?
'rsync -ASHXavP'
-A: ACLs
-S: Sparse files
-H: Hard links
-X: Xattrs
-a: archive mode; equals -rlptgoD (no -H,-A,-X)
You don't need to specify --whole-file, it's implied when copying on
the same system. --inplace can play badly with hard links and
shouldn't be used.
It probably will be slower than other options but it may be more
accurate, especially with -H
-B
rsync is indeed slower than star; so far as I can tell, this is due
almost exclusively to the fact that rsync needs to build an in-memory
table of all work being done *before* it starts to copy. After that, it
copies at about the same rate as star (my observations). I'd have to
look at the code, but rsync appears to internally buffer a signification
amount (due to its expect network use pattern), which helps for ZFS
copying. The one thing I'm not sure of is whether rsync uses a socket,
pipe, or semaphore method when doing same-host copying. I presume socket
(which would slightly slow it down vs star).
That said, rsync is really the only solution if you have a partial or
interrupted copy. It's also really the best method to do verification.
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
