| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:25:57AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi, |
| 4 |
>> Is split an appropriate program to use to break a single 10GB file |
| 5 |
>> into 100 100MB files to transfer over the net using rsync, and then |
| 6 |
>> use cat to reassemble? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Is there some better way to do this? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Just using rsync by itself would probably be a great deal faster, |
| 12 |
> unless you have some undisclosed reason for wanting to split it up. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Hi, |
| 15 |
Nothing technical that's undisclosed. My original reason was not |
| 16 |
knowing what rsync did in the case of errors I simply didn't want to |
| 17 |
start over on such a big file. I figured there was little to lose by |
| 18 |
stitching it back together are the other end and I could always figure |
| 19 |
out exactly what file had failed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That said I don't think there's much difference in the speed. In my |
| 22 |
case (and I think others will have a similar case) my uploads speeds |
| 23 |
are far lower than download. I get about 8MB/S download but only about |
| 24 |
250KB/S upload. It's that low speed that's dominating everything else. |
| 25 |
When I first tried transferring the big file the intermediate speeds |
| 26 |
rsync was reporting were very similar. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
Mark |
Archives