[Bug 9783] please don't use client-server model for local copies

samba-bugs at samba.org samba-bugs at samba.org
Mon May 13 06:46:48 MDT 2013


--- Comment #4 from Kilian CAVALOTTI <kilian.cavalotti.work at gmail.com> 2013-05-13 12:46:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > what result does remote scp vs local-copy-on-sshfs give (i.e what is the impact
> > of sshfs) ?
> They are the comparable, the impact of sshfs is minimal. I used the same SSH
> options to conduct the test over a 10GbE link, and checked the speed of the
> transfer using the NIC counters. I can't reproduce the tests right now, but on
> top of my head, the numbers were:

1. [host1 ~]$ scp host0:/path/to/file /path/to/file        : 175 MB/s
2. [host1 ~]$ cp /sshfs/path/to/file /path/to/file         : 120 MB/s
3. [host1 ~]$ rsync -av host0:/path/to/file /path/to/file  : 174 MB/s
3. [host1 ~]$ rsync -av /sshfs/path/to/file /path/to/file  :  90 MB/s

The test file is a 36GB file, generated from user data.
SSH options are the same in all cases, and use the arcfour cipher.
All rates values measured with bwm-ng
(http://www.gropp.org/?id=projects&sub=bwm-ng) during the steady phase of the
transfer. Destination file has been removed between each test, and the buffer
cache has been cleaned with "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches).

rsync's behavior is definitely different when using a local sshfs mountpoint as
a source rather than copying from a remote server.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

More information about the rsync mailing list