Re: Death of a drive
- From: Ian Rawlings <news06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:23:41 +0100
On 2008-05-21, chris <ithinkiam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why not? With the power of cpus nowadays the cpu overhead for
compressing/decompressing data is lower than the I/O overhead of copying
the uncompressed data. Surely?
It doesn't write the data in compressed form, it reads it, compresses
it block-by-block and sends it to the remote rsync process on another
computer, which then decompresses it then writes it out to disc. It's
intended to compress the data only over a slower network link, so
speeding up the transfer. When copying from one filesystem to another
on the same computer it won't gain you anything, in fact chances are
it won't even pay it any heed.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Death of a drive
- From: chris
- Re: Death of a drive
- References:
- Death of a drive
- From: Paul F. Johnson
- Re: Death of a drive
- From: Ian Rawlings
- Re: Death of a drive
- From: chris
- Re: Death of a drive
- From: Ian Rawlings
- Re: Death of a drive
- From: chris
- Death of a drive
- Prev by Date: Re: Death of a drive
- Next by Date: Re: Death of a drive
- Previous by thread: Re: Death of a drive
- Next by thread: Re: Death of a drive
- Index(es):