nfs mount copy vs ftp

[Camel_1]

Hi there,

I have a request to copy 500GB file from one server to another server. I am wondering is there any timing difference for using nfs mount or ftp/rcp thru a GB network?

Thanks,

Simon

[A. Clay Stephenson · Accepted solution]

Even assuming that you have a version of NFS late enough to support files this large, the overhead of FTP is much, much less than that of NFS. However, not all versions of ftp and/or rcp support files that large either but since you didn't bother to identify client or server, it's difficult to be very specific. But in any case, the overhead of FTP is ftp is less and will give the better performance.

[HGN]

Hi

I agree with Clay the other option is
do a NFS mount of the filesystem here and then do a tar copy to the local filesystem (when doing a tar copy there is no 2GB file size limit also).
you can also go the ftp route.

Rgds

HGN

[Geoff Wild]

500 GB is a lot - even for ftp - that will saturate (or at least put a heavey load on) your network for a while...best to have a second interface on the server to handle it if you are doing this on a regular basis.

That said, rcp or scp would work just as well...

NFS would take a lot longer...

Rgds...Geoff

[Rick Garland]

A couple of other options exist as well.
The one I like best is using vxdump. Here are a couple of examples. vxdump has goodthroughput speed and you can keep the perms/owners the same from 1 sys to the other sys.

I prefer this over rcp, ftp, tar, cpio, etc.

/usr/sbin/vxdump 0f - /dev/vg00/osymmgr | remsh $HOST '(cd /apps/osymmgr; /usr/sbin/vxrestore -rf -)'

/usr/sbin/vxdump 0f - /dev/vg00/openv | remsh $HOST '(cd /apps/openv; /usr/sbin/vxrestore -rf -)'

/usr/sbin/vxdump 0f - /dev/vgfin107/orahome | remsh luna '(cd /apps/aporacle107; /usr/sbin/vxrestore -rf -)'

/usr/sbin/vxdump 0f - /dev/vgfin107/appsmgr | remsh $HOST '(cd /apps/appsmgr107; /usr/sbin/vxrestore -rf -)'

[Camel_1]

thanks guys