Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

rsync is slow if the data is not already on the destination. tar over ssh is fast, and tar over socketpipe is even faster but not encrypted.

I'm not aware of any attributes that tar doesn't preserve.



How so?

Also, I find that if I'm going to copy the data once, I'm often going to copy it twice, or which to get a more up to date version of it at a later time. Rsync clearly wins in these cases.

Finally, from the compress flag on rsync: Note that this option typically achieves better compression ratios than can be achieved by using a compressing remote shell or a compressing transport because it takes advantage of the implicit information in the matching data blocks that are not explicitly sent over the connection.


Rsync is brilliant and useful but gets very slow when you apply it outside of its sweet-spot.

Remember: Rsync trades CPU and disk i/o (lots of disk i/o) for network bandwidth.

In the pathological case "thousands of tiny files over a fast network" it can easily be orders of magnitude slower than a straight tar.


Seems like -W disables the delta transfer.


Exactly right. In my use cases, it's best to tar over ssh initially. Then, if I ever want to update the copy, rsync.


There's cryptcat if you need encryption. "bar" is also a nice little program if you like to see an ETA (c.f. http://clpbar.sourceforge.net/ )




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: