__/ [BearItAll] on Wednesday 19 October 2005 09:03 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Some time ago I asked about limiting scp and it turned out that I had a
>> version of scp that did not support the -l option. I have now resolved
>> that issue, but it turns out that the CPU is crippled just as badly when
>> -l is forced, which means that I cannot work properly (unless I am away).
>> Either way, I have yet another issue, which is similar in nature. I occa-
>> sionally, almost on a daily basis, copy (cp) large files from one parti-
>> tion to another. If the Konqueror interface is used (copy & paste), the
>> speed of the transfer makes interaction quite graceful regardless of the
>> transfer. However, since I scripted the cp command and cp is very CPU-
>> greedy (as anything else that relies on the round-robin scheduling in
>> *nix), even 'nice' does not make the environment workable. If I leave an
>> application alone (idle) for a second, cp 'steals' all the resources it
>> can. I am approaching almost a halt, in particular at I/O-level (applica-
>> tions run fine) for several minutes. I have looked at the man pages for
>> cp, but couldn't immediately find a remedy.
>> So, my question is: can cp have limits imposed? Will these limits, as in
>> the case of scp (see first paragraph) affect the load? It sure seems as if
>> KDE, being at a higher level and using cp merely as a service, is able to
>> achieve that.
>> Many thanks in advance,
> I found from a few distro versions ago, that major copies such as for
> backups had become almost impossible on the live system during working
> hours. rsync using it's daemon works much better, still hungry on a very
> busy server, but manageable.
Thanks for that. I'll just assume there is no easier solution and that I am
not alone in this. If anyone knows a way around this though, I'd love to
hear about it.
I usually cope by invoking the major copy less frequently than I would have
liked. It's a backup thing...
Much appreciated, BearItAll.