On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:50:25PM -0700, Mike Castle wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Celejar<cele...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm no expert in this stuff, so I'm curious - what is gained by this > > over a straight rsync? > > > In my experience, find | cpio is faster than rsync for moving raw > data around. Not sure why, but it feels that way. It's been a long > time since I've done any speed tests. > > If I remember correctly, rsync will still use one process for reading > and another for writing, so you end up reading gigs from disk, shoving > gigs over pipe, writing gigs to disk. I'm not sure if that's still > the case or not. The common tar cf - | tar xf - solution has the same > issue. find | cpio just shoves the list of file names across the > pipe, so there's nearly a third less data being moved around. Of > course, all of that may be immaterial on modern machines. > > It may also be that find | cpio has less of the fragmentation issues > that rsync does (see discussions in the week or two on this list). > But that's pure guess work on my part.
So why not just use cp -a ? -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il | | best ICQ# 16849754 | | friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
