[Bug 11067] New: add --min-depth and --max-depth options
ms at citd.de
Thu Jan 22 14:01:58 MST 2015
On 22.01.2015 14:32, Joe wrote:
> Maybe a bit off topic. (I don't deal with any data even remotely that
> How would you use these new options - just as a way to break large tasks
> into smaller "batches"?
> If rsync "stops in the middle", then the target would be in a sort of
> limbo where it might not be fully usable.
If i would guess.
The description say to me: "big fat storage system underneath".
Which means: "Bandwith limited" by a singular rsync process.
First you do a "--max-depth=2" (or so) run to set a basis.
Then you can do several "-min-depth=2" runs (for different parts) in
parallel, to get the blood of the storage system pumping.
That also uses more than 1 CPU, which a singular rsync would be limited
If you have a "big fat" server with a truckload of cores and an
I/O-System that can do several GB/s, the about 500MB/s i get on my
personal computer for a singular rsync is a limiting factor.
Or just think about the upcoming PCIe NVMe SSDs that can do several GB/s
(and plug several of them into a computer). You need several rsync
processes to spread the I/O load over enough CPUs just for duplicating a
single such SSD to another, if you want to do that in the shortest time
> On 01/22/2015 09:38 AM, samba-bugs at samba.org wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11067
> > Bug ID: 11067
> > Summary: add --min-depth and --max-depth options
> > Product: rsync
> > Version: 3.1.1
> > Hardware: All
> > OS: All
> > Status: NEW
> > Severity: enhancement
> > Priority: P5
> > Component: core
> > Assignee: wayned at samba.org
> > Reporter: chip at innovates.com
> > QA Contact: rsync-qa at samba.org
> > As file systems are getting bigger and bigger, into the multiple petabyte scale
> > rsync is not scaling well, but is still the tool of choice when migrating
> > filesystems from one storage vender to another.
> > Adding --min-depth and --max-depth options to control what directory depth
> > rsync will operate on would allow better targeted rsync processes.
More information about the rsync