[SOLVED] Which is better: cp or rsync for local syncing/coping

robertjinx · 12-02-2010, 01:59 AM

Hello, I would if any of you know and can tell me which of this would be better when trying to copy locally files/directories from disk sda5 for example to disk sdb5?

Im talking about at least 1GB of data and as I know rsync can compress the data before or while coping so I consider rsync a bit better, but I don't know for sure.

I wanna know more or less which is safer, faster and makes sure it copies the exact data without any issue.

Thanks!

mac.tieu · 12-02-2010, 04:19 AM

+1 for rsync

linuxlover.chaitanya · 12-02-2010, 04:40 AM

Rsync is the tool for synchronising data from source to destination. It is made for the specific purpose. And it is faster than cp as well. And when you say the data goes into gig bytes, +1 for rsync.
I use rsync to sync the mysql db for bugzilla over the network and it is at least 5 times faster than cp even though the data does not reach the gig limit.

syg00 · 12-02-2010, 05:35 AM

Rsync has better public relations support. My tracing of functionality (especially with sparse files where I was interested at the time) showed "cp" to be markedly more efficient.
YMMV.

szboardstretcher · 12-02-2010, 09:13 AM

+6 total for Rsync (1 for speed, 5 for progress indicator)

As you can see below - 'rsync' is faster by more than 10%, and has a handy indicator -- where 'cp' does not.

Speed test:

Code:

"time rsync -varh --progress (15G folder/29650 files) (some destination on same drive)"

OUTPUT
total size is 15.02G
real	4m28.815s
user	0m59.163s
sys	0m27.270s


"time cp -a (15G folder/29650 files) (some destination on same drive)"

OUTPUT
real	6m12.800s
user	0m1.418s
sys	0m21.759s

Progress indicator test:

Code:

"rsync -varh --progress (something) (somewhere)"

Output
/dir/dir/dir/file.txt 24.69M 100%   74.51MB/s    0:00:00 (xfer#28470, to-check=340/29650)[/QUOTE]


"cp -a (something) (somewhere)"

Output:
# > <intentionally blank>

robertjinx · 12-03-2010, 03:11 AM

Thanks guys, I was also thinking rsync is better, but need it to make sure.

AlucardZero · 12-03-2010, 09:13 AM

rsync has the added bonus of being able to resume copies partway (even partway through a file if you use --partial).

Quote:

Originally Posted by syg00

Rsync has better public relations support. My tracing of functionality (especially with sparse files where I was interested at the time) showed "cp" to be markedly more efficient.
YMMV.

Did you include rsync's -S option?