1 |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:28:05PM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:25:57AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: |
4 |
> >> Hi, |
5 |
> >> Is split an appropriate program to use to break a single 10GB file |
6 |
> >> into 100 100MB files to transfer over the net using rsync, and then |
7 |
> >> use cat to reassemble? |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> Is there some better way to do this? |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Just using rsync by itself would probably be a great deal faster, |
13 |
> > unless you have some undisclosed reason for wanting to split it up. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Hi, |
16 |
> Nothing technical that's undisclosed. My original reason was not |
17 |
> knowing what rsync did in the case of errors I simply didn't want to |
18 |
> start over on such a big file. I figured there was little to lose by |
19 |
> stitching it back together are the other end and I could always figure |
20 |
> out exactly what file had failed. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> That said I don't think there's much difference in the speed. In my |
23 |
> case (and I think others will have a similar case) my uploads speeds |
24 |
> are far lower than download. I get about 8MB/S download but only about |
25 |
> 250KB/S upload. It's that low speed that's dominating everything else. |
26 |
> When I first tried transferring the big file the intermediate speeds |
27 |
> rsync was reporting were very similar. |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Of course I was referring to the time taken by the extra steps, not the |
31 |
transfer speed. :) |
32 |
|
33 |
You might check man rsync though, it does what you need without |
34 |
splitting and reassembling files.. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
caveat utilitor |
38 |
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ |