Does rsync work over an NFS mount? --Karl _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Beautifully. That's how I have been backing up our NetApp filer. Jacob On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:41:16PM -0700, Karl Kopper wrote:> > Does rsync work over an NFS mount? > > --Karl > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > >
yes, but I recommend you add the -W option, unless it's likely that you have a lot data changing within the files and a slow pipe. Tim Conway tim.conway@philips.com 303.682.4917 Philips Semiconductor - Longmont TC 1880 Industrial Circle, Suite D Longmont, CO 80501 Available via SameTime Connect within Philips Available as n9hmg on AIM perl -e 'print pack(nnnnnnnnnnnn, 19061,29556,8289,28271,29800,25970,8304,25970,27680,26721,25451,25970), ".\n" ' "There are some who call me.... Tim?" "Karl Kopper" <karl_kopper@hotmail.com>@lists.samba.org on 09/25/2001 02:41:16 PM Sent by: rsync-admin@lists.samba.org To: rsync@lists.samba.org cc: (bcc: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS) Subject: Does RSYNC work over NFS? Classification: Does rsync work over an NFS mount? --Karl _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
tim.conway@philips.com [tim.conway@philips.com] writes:> yes, but I recommend you add the -W option, unless it's likely that > you have a lot data changing within the files and a slow pipe.I wouldn't even put any caveat on it. Since rsync is going to have to read the entire file anyway just to compute the block checksums necessary for its algorithm, you're assured that the entire file will flow across the NFS link no matter how much changed. So it really only makes sense to use -W and just copy the whole thing in the first place. To be honest, the only thing rsync offers over a straight copy over NFS is the recursive comparison of timestamp/size to determine files to copy. That might still be worth it, but you're definitely not going to get any benefit in terms of any delta computation. -- David /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ David Bolen \ E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com / | FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 | / 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \ \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Actually, there is a possible exception to that. Certainly, in my situation, I always use -W. Ours is mostly new files or deletions... rarely partial modifications of large single files. consider, however, a slow pipe between systems, one or more mounting filesystems via nfs over a fast connection. the lan connection to the nfs is negligible versus the rsync connection from server to server. We're on one side of that threshold here, with a switched 1000bT connection from our servers to our Network Appliances filers and T1 from server-to-server (1044kbps). Of course, we use slower-performing attached storage for our organization-wide-duplicated filesystems, so there's no question in our case... it's -W... especially when we duplicate to our local redundant fileservers. However, if we were using our netapps for our purpose, -W would slow us in some situations. Tim Conway tim.conway@philips.com 303.682.4917 Philips Semiconductor - Longmont TC 1880 Industrial Circle, Suite D Longmont, CO 80501 Available via SameTime Connect within Philips Available as n9hmg on AIM perl -e 'print pack(nnnnnnnnnnnn, 19061,29556,8289,28271,29800,25970,8304,25970,27680,26721,25451,25970), ".\n" ' "There are some who call me.... Tim?" David Bolen <db3l@fitlinxx.com>@lists.samba.org on 09/25/2001 05:08:58 PM Sent by: rsync-admin@lists.samba.org To: rsync@lists.samba.org cc: (bcc: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS) Subject: RE: Does RSYNC work over NFS? Classification: tim.conway@philips.com [tim.conway@philips.com] writes:> yes, but I recommend you add the -W option, unless it's likely that > you have a lot data changing within the files and a slow pipe.I wouldn't even put any caveat on it. Since rsync is going to have to read the entire file anyway just to compute the block checksums necessary for its algorithm, you're assured that the entire file will flow across the NFS link no matter how much changed. So it really only makes sense to use -W and just copy the whole thing in the first place. To be honest, the only thing rsync offers over a straight copy over NFS is the recursive comparison of timestamp/size to determine files to copy. That might still be worth it, but you're definitely not going to get any benefit in terms of any delta computation. -- David /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ David Bolen \ E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com / | FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 | / 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \ \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
tim.conway@philips.com [tim.conway@philips.com] writes:> consider, however, a slow pipe between systems, one or more mounting > filesystems via nfs over a fast connection. the lan connection to > the nfs is negligible versus the rsync connection from server to > server.Oh, I'd agree with that. But then to me you aren't running rsync over the NFS connection, but over the slow LAN connection. I took the original question to mean using rsync over an NFS connection serving as the link between source and destination (in which case only -W makes sense), but in re-reading the subject, it's a tad ambiguous and could certainly include the above scenario. -- David /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ David Bolen \ E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com / | FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 | / 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \ \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/