On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Gary Roach <gary719_list1 AT verizon DOT net> 
wrote:

> >      Above, do you really mean that I could expect transfer rates as low
> as 600 to 800 KB/S. I could carry the data in a bucket faster. I don't
> have a real good figure for the transfer rates for my present setup but
> know they are way faster than that.
>
> I am getting the idea that putting in a GigE system isn't going to buy
> much speed. Any comments?

Your bottleneck is really going to be the seek time on those older
disk drives, and the smaller the files the more trips the heads have
to make to the diretory/inode/data.   Adding RAM can help some by
letting you cache more of the directory/inodes.   With rsync, after
the initial full run, the network speed won't matter that much.
You'll still spend a lot of time reading and computing the checksums
for verification at both ends but only the differences are
transferred.   If you use the --checksum-seed option, after the 2nd
full copy of any file the server will used the cached copies instead
of having to uncompress its copy to recompute them.

--
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness.
Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire 
the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the 
Employer Resources Portal
http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html
_______________________________________________
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/