[ale] rsync

[JD]

Last time I checked, if rsync thinks both locations are local (i.e. mounted),
then it just copied the files without attempting any sync action at all. Buried
deep in the rsync manpage are options to reduce the checking and/or force block
level syncing based on file size and/or timestamp.

Crap there were a bunch of footers in those emails ... almost 200 lines!

On 08/28/2013 01:58 PM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> On your point 2. 
> 
>  
> 
> An NFS mount is still transferring data over the network so bandwidth is still a
> concern.   True enough if you do rsync from local physical drive mount to NFS
> mount locally you’d get little benefit (and probably some performance loss) from
> doing compression in rsync.   However, it seems it would be more to the point to
> suggest doing the rsync to the host that is sharing out the NFS filesystem in
> such a case.    (Of course point 1 obviates point 2 anyway but I thought it
> worth mentioning for complete detail.)
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] *On Behalf Of *Brian Mathis
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:00 PM
> *To:* Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> *Subject:* Re: [ale] rsync
> 
>  
> 
> Compression won't help for 2 reasons:
> 
> 1) Image data is already compressed
> 
> 2) It sounds like you're syncing between local mounts, in which case the data
> would be uncompressed before writing to the destination, which is the local
> mount, which then sends it over the network.  I hope rsync is smart enough to
> ignore the compression option when syncing between local sources.
> 
> Compression is only going to help if you're syncing between 2 separate machines
> and the data is being transferred over the network by rsync itself -- not when
> using a network file system.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ❧ Brian Mathis
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Edward Holcroft <eholcroft at mkainc.com
> <mailto:eholcroft at mkainc.com>> wrote:
> 
> I am rsyncing a many files, mostly photos from an EBS volume to an S3 bucket
> (locally mounted using FUSE) on AWS.
> 
>  
> 
> Given that it's primarily photographic data (jpg), is it still a good idea to
> use compression (z- option), or will I not gain any real benefit by trying to
> compress jpegs?
> 
>  
> 
> Alternately, if anyone has a better way of getting 600GB of data from EBS to S3,
> please let me know.
>