| |||||||||||||
A look at rsync performanceA look at rsync performancePosted Aug 19, 2010 19:31 UTC (Thu) by pj (subscriber, #4506)In reply to: A look at rsync performance by bronson Parent article: A look at rsync performance
One advantage is that it's easily modified to work over ssh:
tar cf - . | ssh user@remote "cd /dest/dir; tar xf -)
or
(ssh user@remote "cd /src/dir ; tar cf - . ") | (cd /dest/dir; tar xf -)
(Log in to post comments)
A look at rsync performance Posted Aug 20, 2010 11:53 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
A 'cp' command can also be easily modified to work over the network, just add an 's' to the front of 'cp' :-)
A look at rsync performance Posted Aug 20, 2010 12:28 UTC (Fri) by dsommers (subscriber, #55274) [Link]
True ... but if you have a lot of files, especially smaller files, the tar path with ssh is way faster than scp. Try copying a git repository (~2-3MB) from one site to another site. My experiences is that tar+ssh beats scp significantly.
A look at rsync performance Posted Aug 20, 2010 14:52 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
> but if you have a lot of files, especially smaller files, the tar path with ssh is way faster than scp. Try copying a git repository (~2-3MB) from one site to another site. My experiences is that tar+ssh beats scp significantly.
Only because you open a new ssh connection per file by default and tar+ssh opens only one. Which causes lots of overhead. If you reuse your ssh connection scp will be fast as well:
A look at rsync performance Posted Aug 21, 2010 2:05 UTC (Sat) by dmag (subscriber, #17775) [Link]
No, scp can't copy symlinks.
A look at rsync performance Posted Aug 24, 2010 20:01 UTC (Tue) by BackSeat (subscriber, #1886) [Link] No need for all the "cd" commands:tar -C /src/dir -cf - . | tar -C /dest/dir -xf -
|
|||||||||||||