> > Even faster is a tar pipeline: > > cd /drive1 > tar cf - . | ( cd /drive2; tar xf - ) > > because both cp and rsync do one file at a time. There will inherently be small > pauses at each file boundary. Actually, rsync might stream a little. > > Using piped tars and many files, particularly many small files, the first tar > can get ahead of the second tar for better throughput - the data queued in the > pipe (which has a buffer, and a generous one on Linux) allows the first tar to > proceed until the pipe is full if the second tar is blocked. (The second tar > will of course be blocked writing to drive2, but it won't be blocked reading > from drive1 because the first tar can read followon files from drive1 which the > second tar reads from the pipe). Hi, I was doing this and it is definitely faster than rsync: cd /drive1 tar cf - uncopieddir1 uncopieddir2 ... | ( cd /drive2 ; tar xf - ) But, after about 16 hours, I am only 229G in (out of 3.7T). This is much slower than the other thread with USB drives which did 400GB in 8 hours. Is this a function of the health of the first disk? Also, I wanted to ask: if this job died and I restarted it, would it be possible to not have to start it from all over again? (Sort of like rsync can do.) Best wishes, Ranjan _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
