I've not seen mentioned is, upgrading your kernel may help.
> > Somewhere shortly before kernel 3.0, pathname lookups got
> > noticeably faster.
> >
> > You could also try an alternative filesystem like xfs. It's
> > supposed to be pretty good at large directori
overhead but that shouldn't be a big deal on
> only 100Mbits. It would make no difference in the indexing.
>
> Have you checked your version yet? Run rsync --version on both
> systems. If it isn't 3.0.something upgrade. That will make a big
> difference.
>
> On 04/
ng rsync v3. It indexes in
> parallel to the copying.
>
> On 04/12/12 16:59, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > On 04/12/2012 03:28:18 PM, vijay patel wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks friends. We are using Redhat Linux 5.8 on Production and
> >> Disaster Recovery side. By
sh. If
> encryption isn't important you could also setup rsyncd.
>
> If it is mostly updating existing files check the itemize output to
> see if the files really need updating. For instance if something is
> screwing with your timestamps that will create a bunch of extra work
> f
Hi Friends,
I am using rsync to copy data from Production File Server to Disaster Recovery
file server. I have 100Mbps link setup between these two servers. Folder
structure is very deep. It is having path like
/reports/folder1/date/folder2/file.tx, where we have 1600 directories like
'folde
