Re: rsync vs. cvsup benchmarks

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
> The only minor thing I'd bring up is that I recall one reason for cvsup is
> that rsync placed a relatively higher load per client on the server.

That needs to be established.  We already heard that cvsup - contrary to 
claims - is not competitive with rsync, on the client side.  So I can very 
well believe that this is also true for the server side.  I for myself 
always notice that when syncing from chlamydia, the server basically 
traverses all 60k files *instantly*, while it takes quite some time on my 
desktop.  So the load doesn't seem to be a problem once the directory 
structure is in the buffer cache.

> Of course, that may complaint may date from when people only had 400Mhz
> CPUs and older versions of rsync, so I doubt it's a strong reason to stay
> with cvsup any more.

Quick test on chlamydia:  rsync of already synced repo:

% time rsync --delete -aH chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de::dragonfly-cvs .
rsync --delete -aH chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de::dragonfly-cvs .  0.72s user 
1.43s system 36% cpu 5.865 total

considering that rsync spends half of the time on the local side, that's < 
3s of load on the server:

53331 nobody   161   0  4536K  3888K select   0:00 355.68% 33.89% rsync

nobody cares about that.  it might take some more cycles when transfering, 
but so what.  seriously.  I don't care, this is peanuts.

cheers
  simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \