Re: Rsync on servers
> email@example.com (Otto Wyss) writes:
> > Is this load really a problem? Doesn't a ftp download need about about
> > the same amount of load on the server as the rsync? Doesn't an rsync
> > download even need less if just halve of the download is actually
> > transferred?
> FTP just reads bytes off disk and spews them to the network. This
> takes little CPU, and the zero-copy networking people are working at
> getting rid of most of that.
> Rsync is much more complex, because of the contortions it goes through
> to minimize bandwidth used. Take a look at
> http://rsync.samba.org/rsync/tech_report/ for details.
Just reading bytes off a disk also need a considerable amount of CPU and
pushing them out through a TCP/IP-Stack as well. I don't believe that
rsync really uses that more if you count the overall costs. IMHO at
least if halve of the transfer could be saved, an rsync transfer beats
an ftp transfer.
Well it's nonsense to discuss this further if nobody has some real