From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question Message-ID: <20020626170359.B10838@cnm-vra.com> References: <7598dbcb8282f0047fef945f41388cfb@caldo.demon.co.uk> <171e27d5f2cfd12a9303117e58818e5b@plan9.bell-labs.com> <20020626150713.A10838@cnm-vra.com> <000601c21d65$2f2bd7a0$2248dec2@falken> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <000601c21d65$2f2bd7a0$2248dec2@falken>; from chris@cjl1.demon.co.uk on Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 11:59:27PM +0100 From: Micah Stetson Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:03:59 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: baf0facc-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > When doing your remote -> remote copy > try copying between two different mounts of the same > fileserver so as reads and writes are on separate network > connections. The times don't differ significantly. > you could see if iostats(4) offers a hint. > quite apart from retaining Plan 9 modes and long names correctly, > mkfs archives use a file header that's more compact than tar's (1 line per file not > 512 bytes) I noticed it was doing about 8x as many reads as writes. Adding -z 8192 to the mkfs command line caused everything to work better. The new time is about 30% faster than cpdir and seven or eight times faster than the tar version. Question answered. Thanks. Micah