Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <40F3CD18.9090208@alexisgallagher.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:52:56 +0100 From: Alexis Gallagher Reply-To: alexis@alexisgallagher.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland CC: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: rsync very slow, but not a network issue References: <40F3BFC4.9060000@alexisgallagher.com> <009b01c468ca$217959e0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <40F3C6CE.6030602@alexisgallagher.com> <00b001c468cd$693f5880$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00b001c468cd$693f5880$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok, Now this is progress. When I use '--size-only' then I do see a speedup. The 'transfer' is virtually instantaneous on the stopwatch, and 'rsync --stats' reports a speed of a mere 25 bytes/sec but with a reported speedup of 78125. I can see why this works, but I remain confused why I should need to resort to it. This is basically dispensing with the rsync algorithm, no? The cygwin machine is a Pentium III, 966 Mhz, 512MB of RAM. And the OSX machine is a 1 Ghz PowerPC G4 with 256MB of RAM. I can't believe everyone would use rsync as much as they do if it were not useful on machines of such specifications. Is there a way to benchmark its hashing algorithm on both sides? Maybe the rsync process is getting insufficient priority on one side of the transfer? I remain puzzled, Alexis Gallagher Steven Hartland wrote: > Alexis Gallagher wrote: > >> So it's taking much longer in real time when the file is already >> there, which is exactly the situation where rsync is supposed to >> accelerate teh transfer. >> >> The cygwin machine is a Pentium III 1Ghz, and the eMac is a bit >> faster I believe. This should be fast enough that it's not >> bottlenecking on the hash computation, I think. > > Are you using "--size-only"? Depending on the processor the check of > the file chunks can be slower. > -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/