On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:51:22PM -0400, Wallace Matthews wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. It works fine if I remove the --write-batch from the
> command line.
> That should narrow it down for the bug fixer(s). I know that --write-batch works ok
> when the reference file is on a remote system.
>
> It means that until there is a fix, I have no use for the local only case. My only
> purpose for using it was to create delta files that I could then send to remote
> system(s) to create incrementals.
>
Wally,
You may want to try out the CVS version of rsync with my recent
batch-mode rewrite patch. It has a little different (better) interface,
and it does work in the case you describe.
It would be interesting to see the results of your block-size
measurements.
-chris
> wally
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Shoemaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:31 AM
> To: Wallace Matthews
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: what am I doing wrong
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:53:53PM -0400, Wallace Matthews wrote:
> > I am seeing some rather strange behavior with synch of 2 directories on the same
> > system using 2.6.2.
> >
> > The older file is the image of a full backup and is 29Gig in size. The new image
> > is a slice of an incremental
> > backup and is 101Meg in size.
> >
> > the command line is:
> > time /home/wally/rsync/rsync-2.6.2 -av --rsh=rsh --backup --stats
> > --block-size=<xxx> --write-batch=kbup1aaa /test/Kibbutz/Kbup_1.aaa
> > /test/Kibbutz/work
> >
> > What I am observing in /test/Kibbutz/work is a file .Kbup_1.aaa.AZVyuT that is 35
> > Meg in size after an overnight run that has been going on for 14 hours. When I
> > kill the job, I get real 817m10.062s and user 814m45.940s sys 7m23.870s.
> >
> > I have tried this without the --block-size statement and it goes pretty fast but
> > the literal data is 104M with no matches.
> >
> > I have tried it for a variety of --block-size=<xxx> and it always stalls with very
> > high user times.
> >
> > If I make the destination fedor://test/Kibbutz with a copy of the 29G file in the
> > destination directory, it takes about 30m of real time and 9m of user time.
> >
> > It seems to be specific to source and destination being on the same system.
> >
> > Would either Wayne or Tim give me some insight into what I am doing to screw up
> > rsync so badly??
>
> Do you observe the same behavior without "write-batch"?
> -chris
>
> >
> > I did similar experiments with 2.5.7 in January and didnt see behavior like this,
> > but at that time my full backup images were only 100 Meg or so and my incremental
> > backups were about 10 Meg.
> >
> > I was experimenting with building the deltas locally and distributing them with a
> > download server for expansion of the remote targets.
> >
> > wally
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
> > Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
