On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Erik Trimble <erik.trim...@oracle.com> wrote: > 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
rsync 3.0+ will start copying almost immediately, so it's much better in that respect than previous versions. It continues to scan update the list of files while sending data. > 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 It creates a socketpair() before clone()ing itself and uses the socket for communications. > 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. For verification you should specify -c (checksums), otherwise it will only look at the size, permissions, owner and date and if they all match it will not look at the file contents. It can take as long (or longer) to complete than the original copy, since files on both side need to be read and checksummed. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
