RE: help over "rsync vs cvsupd perfmance"

["Nigel Weeks" <nweeks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> Um, I just meant cvsup vs. rsync without ssh. Rsync can talk to the
> rsync daemon that runs on the remote server, I'd think this is the
> best way that you can use rsync. I don't know enough about cvsup to
> say anything like that, though.
> 
> For using ssh/rsh with rsync, you just need to do the following:
> 
> rsync -e <ssh/rsh> <other options>
> 
> And yes, probably the most important test is seeing how fast partial
> updates work, like Justin said.
> 
> One other (not so important) thing you might want to try is to see
> what happens when you try to update say, 1.6 to 1.6 - ideally you
> should get a near-zero download. It'd be interesting to see how much
> data is actually transferred by cvsup and rsync.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> K.
> 

One of the biggest issues I have with rsync is the amount of time it takes to produce and transfer the list of files before it moves any deltas between hosts.

I sync two repositories every day, consisting of over 60,000 files. rsync's incredibly efficient when it comes to pumping the changes across, but it's the wall-lock time for the list of files that I find a little annoying - takes about 20 minutes before any syncing is done...

Perhaps a tiny bit of development on rsync itself might be in order - perhaps threading, so that the list of files can be transferred while deltas start being pumped...

Nige.