On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Erik Trimble <erik.trim...@oracle.com> wrote: > 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.
rsync 2.x works that way., building a complete list of files/directories to copy before starting the copy. rsync 3.x doesn't. 3.x builds an initial file list for the first directory and then starts copying files while continuing to build the list of files, so there's only a small pause at the beginning. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
