DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2008-01
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2008-01
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: rsync vs. cvsup benchmarks

From: "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:20:34 +0100

Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
The only minor thing I'd bring up is that I recall one reason for cvsup is
that rsync placed a relatively higher load per client on the server.

That needs to be established. We already heard that cvsup - contrary to claims - is not competitive with rsync, on the client side. So I can very well believe that this is also true for the server side. I for myself always notice that when syncing from chlamydia, the server basically traverses all 60k files *instantly*, while it takes quite some time on my desktop. So the load doesn't seem to be a problem once the directory structure is in the buffer cache.

Of course, that may complaint may date from when people only had 400Mhz
CPUs and older versions of rsync, so I doubt it's a strong reason to stay
with cvsup any more.

Quick test on chlamydia: rsync of already synced repo:

% time rsync --delete -aH chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de::dragonfly-cvs .
rsync --delete -aH chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de::dragonfly-cvs . 0.72s user 1.43s system 36% cpu 5.865 total

considering that rsync spends half of the time on the local side, that's < 3s of load on the server:

53331 nobody 161 0 4536K 3888K select 0:00 355.68% 33.89% rsync

nobody cares about that. it might take some more cycles when transfering, but so what. seriously. I don't care, this is peanuts.


Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]