rsync takes way too long to perform this....

Brian Clark brianj at
Fri Nov 23 13:19:28 EST 2001

Hi Jason,

@ 6:26:56 PM on 11/22/2001, Jason Haar wrote:

>> I'll just use scp. It's faster using virtually the same method.

> Is that true? Why would large directories make rsync run poorer than
> scp?

> Could this be a RAM issue instead? Rsync has to load the entire
> directory listing into memory first, so could that be related to
> your problem instead?

Whew, I don't know what the cause is, but I've had trouble too. I had
a rough time using both `-e ssh' and `-avl server::module /dest' in
the past two days.

I was transferring a lot of files (For example, /var/www/docs/a
through z -- home directories, obviously) and I had to restart the
transfer too many times to count (This is over a full T1).

The local and remote machines both were running minimal services (no
mail or ftp, etc; basically necessities and ssh) with 256Mb of memory

-e ssh seemed to be the biggest problem. I had to use `rsync -avl
server::module /dest' to get most of the files, then go back and get
the bigger stuff and non-`nobody'-readable manually using -e ssh.

(saved a LOT of time as far as permissions go, however)

It was certainly not a perfect situation.. :-)


More information about the rsync mailing list