Community Bot 1. Using rsync 3. Add -v --progress to your rsync command line rsync is done in 2 steps: deep browse all files on both platforms to compare their size and mdate do the actual transfer If you are rsync thousands of small files in nested directories, it can simply be that rsync spends most of this time going into subdirs and finding all files If time is not spend for browsing, the time might simply due to the addition of all the latencies starting each new file transfer.
Alex F Alex F 1 1 gold badge 9 9 silver badges 17 17 bronze badges. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog. Podcast Explaining the semiconductor shortage, and how it might end. Does ES6 make JavaScript frameworks obsolete? Featured on Meta. Now live: A fully responsive profile. Linked 3. Related Hot Network Questions. Question feed.
How to Install Parse Server on Ubuntu An online computing service that offers elastic and secure virtual cloud servers to cater all your cloud hosting needs. An encrypted and secure cloud storage service which stores, processes and accesses massive amounts of data from anywhere in the world. More Posts by Alibaba Clouder. Speeding Up Network File Transfers with rsync In this tutorial, we will be using rsync on our ECS instance to synchronize files and directories between two locations.
To receive pull a file instead of sending it, we simply reverse the source and destination parameters: rsync -v root Use rsync Archive Mode and Compression to Speed Up Transfers Usually, when synchronizing directories, the -a archive parameter is preferred instead of -r.
So, in most cases, when you will synchronize directories, you will use a command such as: rsync -avPz root If you don't need all of these options, you can replace -a with the options you need, e. When you want to keep all metadata on source and destination files identical, sometimes you will have to supplement the -a parameter with: -X -- Preserve extended attributes, e. Without this option, directories are skipped and only files are copied.
Without this option, files that have been deleted in the source won't be deleted on destination, which is preferable for most backup schemas. Keep in mind that the --delete parameter exposes you to the risk of losing the entire backup, if used inappropriately e.
The number can be adjusted according to your use case. This is especially useful when transferring large files. Without -P or --partial , if the connection drops during a transfer, the file is deleted and you will have to restart from scratch.
Interestingly, when running the whole test again, both find s finished almost immediately. I assume that this is due to caching of directory data in the Linux kernels. Normally, rsync only compares file modification dates and file sizes. Your approach would force it to read and checksum the content of all files twice on the local and remote system to find changed directories. For synchronisation of large numbers of files where little has changed , it is also worth setting noatime on the source and destination partitions.
This saves writing access times to the disk for each unchanged file. Note it isn't encrypted, but may be able to be tunneled without losing the listing performance improvement. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Faster rsync of huge directory which was not changed Ask Question. Asked 5 years, 10 months ago. Active 1 year, 1 month ago.
Viewed 42k times. We use rsync to backup servers. Unfortunately the network to some servers is slow. I guess that the rsync clients sends data for each of the 80k files.
Since the network is slow I would like to avoid to send 80k times information about each file. Is there a way to tell rsync to make a hash-sum of a sub directory tree? This way the rsync client would send only a few bytes for a huge directory tree. Update Up to now my strategy is to use rsync. Update2 There are 80k files in one directory tree. Improve this question. You might read up on zsync. I have not used it myself, but from what I read, it pre-renders the metadata on the server side and might just speed up transfers in your case.
It might be worth testing anyway. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Some unrelated points: 80K is a lot of files. Check your rsync version Modern rsync handles large directories a lot better than in the past.
Make sure --checksum is not being used --checksum or -c requires reading each and every block of every file. Split the job into small batches. OS defaults aren't made for this situation. Look at the "namei cache" BSD-like operating systems have a cache that accelerates looking up a name to the inode the "namei" cache". Consider a different file system XFS was designed to handle larger directories. See Filesystem large number of files in a single directory Maybe 5 minutes is the best you can do.
Benchmark against something similar Another way to think about it is this. Talk to your devs 80k files is just bad design. Hey, what's wrong with 5 minutes? Try to squeeze more bandwidth out of the pipe with compression.
Try rsync with and without -z , and configure your ssh with and without compression. Time all 4 combinations to see if any of them perform significantly better than others. Watch network traffic to see if there are any pauses. If there are pauses, you can find what is causing them and optimize there. If rsync is always sending, then you really are at your limit. Embed What would you like to do? Embed Embed this gist in your website. Share Copy sharable link for this gist.
Learn more about clone URLs. Download ZIP. This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters. This comment has been minimized. Sign in to view. Copy link Quote reply. Muito Obrigado!
Thank you so much! Thanks to the OP. T c o and x are valuable options to use for bulk transfers. However, there's a typo in the description: --numeric-ds Should be: --numeric- i ds.
I think is faster to mount remote server with nfs and do rsync locally. For example, the sshd ship with Debian Jessie: ssh -c arcfour sso Unable to negotiate with x. How to exclude for example hidden directories? Anything I tried doesn't work. My server does not support arcfour, so I removed that option. Wow, thanks for sharing these, I can't believe how much faster it is. Well done! That why you dont just paste anything you read on the internet in your terminal. I'm only getting marginally better transfers.
Would anyone happen to know why? Link speedtests Host Upload Speed used here : speedtest-cli Retrieving speedtest. Testing from Google Fiber Retrieving speedtest. Selecting best server based on ping Hosted by Google Fiber: Download: Upload: Selecting best server based on latency Hosted by CenturyLink, Inc: Hi, currently transferring from one server to another of 1.
0コメント