On 07/15 09:53 , Les Mikesell wrote:
> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> > 
> > As a noteworthy data point, when making an initial copy of files (not using
> > backuppc, just plain tar or rsync); tar is 2x-4x faster than rsync,
> > presumably due to all of rsync's calculating overhead.
> 
> Are you comparing a tar to a tar archive to rsync or 'tar -c | ssh ... 
> tar -x'?  

The latter.

> The slow part of the process should be creating the new 
> directory tree and file structure.  Rsync shouldn't do a lot of 
> calculating when the target is empty, but it does (at least the old 
> versions) read and transfer the entire source directory tree before 
> starting any file transfers which can add some time to the operation 
> particularly where there are a lot of small files.

Interesting. I might have vaguely known some of that but never correlated
it. Thank you. I think I can see how it might be a bit slower to create the
directory trees then transfer the files, rather than create the files and
indices in a more sequential fashion.

-- 
Carl Soderstrom
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge  
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, 
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize  
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/