efficiency issue with rsync.....

[jw schultz]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 05:46:41AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:49:09PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > 
> > Hi rsync team, 
> > 
> > I thought that rsync would try to overlap computing and IO on both
> > machines. 
> > 
> > I'm rsyncing a large tree (18G) and am keeping an eye on that. 
> > Suddenly my side completely stopped. No IO visible, no CPU
> > time spent. The otherside was doing 100% CPU. Then the other
> > side started to do disk IO. Then suddenly the activities moved
> > over to my side, and I saw things moving again in the "-v --progress"
> > output. 
> 
> This indeed would produce the effect you describe. 400MB
> (400Mb == 50MB) would take a while to generate the block
> sums and then another larger chunk of time to match those
> with rolling checksums.  Your description makes it sound
> like you were sending, the 100% CPU interval it was probably
correction...   ^^^^^^^ receiving
> hashing the block checksums prior to doing the rolling
> checksum match (disk i/o).

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw at pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt