hello,

1) mount 10.5.5.100:/Backup /mount
cp -rup /home/leela /mount

2) mount 10.5.5.100:/Backup /mount
rsync -r /home/leela /mount


The first command works faster than the second according to my experience

But according to man pages of rsync the second command works much faster than first


So why is it like this?

Try:

Let me know if it makes a difference?

cp would copy every file every time..

rsync will scan all the files specified for changes, and after that is complete, it will transfer ONLY the changes in the files over the link to the destination.

So when keeping multiple machines in sync, especially when they are seperated by some sort of WAN connection the rsync method will definately take less time and less bandwidth.

When you are transfering between two folders on hard drives on the same machine the differences will not be as noticeable.

Hi Farslayer

cp -rup command copies only updated files or it copies all files once again

When doing backups, you would only use "cp" if you didn't know how "rsync" works. I'm not 100% how rsync works myself, but I do know how to read manpages and create scripts. I use rsync in the ~/bin/backup.sh script I created. I don't really remember how it works, I just know it does the job.

(I would post the script, but I'm not at home right now.)

Using rsync locally for one file at a time doesn't make a lot of sense unless you have a large file whose contents change only in part between copies and you are copying to a device which can read fast, but has a very slow write speed. In this case, rsync is great

rsync is good locally for working out which files need to be copied in large trees of files, and only copying those which nee to be copied. It's at it's best working across a network (where the network is slower than the write speed of the target device), since it does a fairly efficient check of which files need updating, and only sends parts of files which are new (well, ok, it also sends some checking info as well...).