Re: Copy slower than rsync Re: Bugs and features

[Adrian Phillips]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Burgess <mark@daneel.iu.hio.no> writes:

    Mark> I looked at this a while back and there are several issues

    Mark> * seem to be version differences with rsync and cfengine

    Mark> * cfengine spreads things out over time (low CPU, slower
    Mark> total time) rsync (high CPU, short total time). Thus with
    Mark> multiple connections one would expect cfengine to
    Mark> survive/scale longer than rsync.

Well, even a 1+GB partition only takes a few seconds on a fast,
lightly loaded server with rsync even using ssh. Obviously when there
are lots of differences then rsync is going to chew memory.

    Mark> * rsync trusts everything and caches like mad to go fast.

This is rsync using ssh so there is a reasonably level of security
involved, unlike rsyncs own server.

    Mark> * cfengine trusts very little and does lots of checks. (In
    Mark> my opinion this is the correct approach, since speed is
    Mark> rarely of the essence in system admin).

Its not just speed thats the question. Obviously a process
(continously) running for 4 minutes is going to eat more resources
than one running for 4 seconds no matter how heavy the latter is for
its life.

Anyway, currently I'm switching all my large copies over to
shellcommand rsyncs to avoid this because I prefer to have cfagent
running for as short a time as possible. Other people may have other
preferences.

And note, this "complaint" doesn't detract from cfengine's overall
usefulness. I've never found anything that could easily replace it for
small to large scale machine management.

Sincerely,

Adrian Phillips

-- 
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now?  [OK]