X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=NoARRjb
	dA4+fM5SCs43/Gu2X8nsA2z9CC1IFjrGj1mDNIFvRmPZ3owMPKTCf/l5aYAc0Vki
	5b2FKeka5OnUFHYhuWWvBmYUtR+I2a0n3qz6Qpgs6GuhrKjKFeNzEXkNpJlORSpP
	/eyMbPVqLZzaXuxhF89QyCQQcjI4CxjVVqNk=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; s=default; bh=XC/pUDEE7QMuM
	DS+4y9Us1pv5Gc=; b=kU28mMTa5EcZ8iIZ7nHN0j7qK3fTfKeXtK2sEvvSkKla7
	wHvMaetf3MRvjw/cmDkuRPVdQWgKYgb+Hg0dxsrjtcJ0x8aK9XUN5Rn5H7w2T/pB
	hMhqu6QSEp65iTefqQB6ge9TsPz41IsX+N82TEAuWxn4Phx2CPIimO31h4OhCA=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=gregfreemyergmailcom, greg DOT freemyer AT gmail DOT com, H*i:sk:CAGpXXZ, H*f:sk:_K5Uub-
X-HELO:	mail-lf0-f42.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=G+aWc41ejrvLV1AX+APIakoPWCAQVguMeT1qzgl0gM4=; b=EoFYC5F3ePaOAlQMs7meRe9rwzamcHZSA6+D5Ki5eIeVWXDYHifAjxvuqLtKKL8Vt1 ACgaVE07HvQ/JMdfINbk1CvzOsRgSaSS3xk89huOolugsZ7T8U+LsmFTexU/9tIlZRWt LdErAolNMZavxfPjtAuW9K13JS8cYZHb+gZzFhi4/OjEmra64iBauy/830TzaEIVGUby ulNVRAW8MTwkeTeYfmsx0RwHFZvZIJ/Yq2vXNL9tuQVeJB6fV3peBy9LKWD5qf6OUs9X 2zNIhMOqBYGRIsm6ogS1VPt1SxjbotGOSKsS1/6jSvm8G9XKLpmH+oMSoOebUgY0eba9 m93A==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AOPr4FXnKqjaNA388HdhNfalXxsXCxbgGDsaynqBh7tpuPQln52va5AHdmHhBGcIO5qHtca3gCnoLtCFPKw75w==
X-Received:	by 10.112.134.229 with SMTP id pn5mr20422lbb.36.1460416082360; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CAGpXXZL9ZAJF_YSUOR=9WCvu+_K5Uub-zwWdpUV-yu7+OkYzFg@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAGpXXZJV-nsB=xyO7=EBUb-JCk5KqMPS=bvg2aWgw_jm4OZFsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAGpXXZLJ=O7y-6YEcODv4r32X96zGSU5PX9KwzwF3QedSV4iHA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <570BE03D DOT 7030709 AT gmail DOT com> <CAGpXXZL9ZAJF_YSUOR=9WCvu+_K5Uub-zwWdpUV-yu7+OkYzFg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
From:	Greg Freemyer <greg DOT freemyer AT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:07:22 -0400
Message-ID:	<CAGpXXZKx19G-ixt5u59R+-5Rjn7yozwUEpLW1qFSY59Wckn8Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: rsync performance degradation? Could be a windows issue?
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Greg Freemyer <greg DOT freemyer AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> As I test, I just copied 30 GB of 1.5 GB files via robocopy.  None of
> the files had been accessed since a reboot, so none should have been
> in cache.
>
> According to Resource Monitor, yes.
>
> I'm getting about 105 MB/sec for read and 105 MB/sec for write vs  70
> MB/sec for rsync.

I just moved both drives to a Linux box.  Using the same rsync command
I'm getting 85 - 90 MB/sec.

That linux box is a 5-year old laptop, where as the windows box is a
pretty beefy box.  (6 cores, 64 GB ram)   Clearly the WIndows box
should be better performing and when running robocopy it is.

So it seems something about the combination of a Windows kernel,
cygwin, and rsync is dropping my performance at least a factor 20% and
maybe as much as 35%.

If I were to run rsync in strace, would anyone want to try and work on
the performance issue?  Or should it just be chalked up to rsync being
optimized for a linux kernel?

Thanks
Greg
--
Greg Freemyer
www.IntelligentAvatar.net

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -