From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750745AbWDKLLl (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:11:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750747AbWDKLLl (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:11:41 -0400 Received: from dspnet.fr.eu.org ([213.186.44.138]:28682 "EHLO dspnet.fr.eu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750745AbWDKLLl (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:11:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:11:37 +0200 From: Olivier Galibert To: "Hack inc." Subject: What is the most efficient way to copy a bunch of files nowadays? Message-ID: <20060411111137.GA13961@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Galibert , "Hack inc." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org After having read-only mucked with the headers of a bunch of files[1] I've selected a subset of 2500 or so with sizes going from 2K to 85M which I want to copy to another directory in the same local filesystem. What is the "best" (CPU usage, fragmentation, wall clock time, system responsiveness during and after the copy) way to copy these files? read+write, mmap+write, read+mmap, mmap+mmap+memcpy, something else? That's with recent kernels, of course. OG. [1] Say rpms from a random distribution and its updates for instance