Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Suppose you have to _migrate_ 4TB of data (all of /home/*) from one host to a new SAN attached to a new host. You know it's going to take time, and your users work around the clock so the best approach would be to do the migration in two steps: 1) copy all data as a way to get the "bulk" of the data migrated 2) disable write access to source and copy the remaining data Assume that the /home directory on the "remote" source host is mounted via NFS to the target host (so there is a local path to /source). Would cp cp -au /source/* /target be preferable to rsync? rsync -vazn --checksum --progress --stats /source/ dest/ This conversation http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/44384/cp-or-rsync-is-cp-really-worth-it doesn't seem to offer clear consensus; or if it does, it's that cp can be used to make a phase one copy, and then (shut off write access to source) rsync can be used to do the final copy. Greg Rundlett
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |