Ok,
Now this is progress. When I use '--size-only' then I do see a speedup. The 'transfer' is virtually instantaneous on the stopwatch, and 'rsync --stats' reports a speed of a mere 25 bytes/sec but with a reported speedup of 78125.
I can see why this works, but I remain confused why I should need to resort to it. This is basically dispensing with the rsync algorithm, no?
The cygwin machine is a Pentium III, 966 Mhz, 512MB of RAM. And the OSX machine is a 1 Ghz PowerPC G4 with 256MB of RAM. I can't believe everyone would use rsync as much as they do if it were not useful on machines of such specifications.
Is there a way to benchmark its hashing algorithm on both sides? Maybe the rsync process is getting insufficient priority on one side of the transfer? I remain
puzzled, Alexis Gallagher
Steven Hartland wrote:
Alexis Gallagher wrote:
So it's taking much longer in real time when the file is already there, which is exactly the situation where rsync is supposed to accelerate teh transfer.
The cygwin machine is a Pentium III 1Ghz, and the eMac is a bit faster I believe. This should be fast enough that it's not bottlenecking on the hash computation, I think.
> Are you using "--size-only"? Depending on the processor the check of > the file chunks can be slower. >
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
