LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andreas Dilger <>
To: Steve French <>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <>,
	samba-technical <>,
	CIFS <>,
	LKML <>
Subject: Re: copy_file_range and user space tools to do copy fastest
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:45:40 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2002 bytes --]

On Apr 27, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Steve French <> wrote:
> Are there any user space tools (other than our test tools and xfs_io
> etc.) that support copy_file_range?  Looks like at least cp and rsync
> and dd don't.  That syscall which now has been around a couple years,
> and was reminded about at the LSF/MM summit a few days ago, presumably
> is the 'best' way to copy a file fast since it tries all the
> mechanisms (reflink etc.) in order.
> Since copy_file_range syscall can be 100x or more faster for network
> file systems than the alternative, was surprised when I noticed that
> cp and rsync didn't support it.  It doesn't look like rsync even
> supports reflink either(although presumably if you call
> copy_file_range you don't have to worry about that), and reads/writes
> are 8K. See copy_file() in rsync/util.c
> In the cp command it looks like it can call the FICLONE IOCTL (see
> clone_file() in coreutils/src/copy.c) but doesn't call the expected
> "copy_file_range" syscall.
> In the dd command it doesn't call either - see dd_copy in corutils/src/dd.c
> Since it can be 100x or more faster in some cases to call
> copy_file_range than do reads/writes back and forth to do a copy
> (especially if network or clustered backend or cloud), what tools are
> the best to recommend?
> Would rsync or cp be likely to take patches to call the standard
> "copy_file_range" syscall
> (
> Presumably not if it has been two+ years ... but would be interested
> what copy tools to recommend to use instead.

I would start with submitting a patch to coreutils, if you can figure
out that code enough to do so (I find it quite opaque).  Since it has
been in the kernel for a while already, it should be acceptable to the
upstream coreutils maintainers to use this interface.  Doubly so if you
include some benchmarks with CIFS/NFS clients avoiding network overhead
during the copy.

Cheers, Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 873 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-27 19:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-27 18:25 Steve French
2018-04-27 19:45 ` Andreas Dilger [this message]
2018-04-27 23:41   ` Eric Biggers
2018-04-28  5:18     ` Andreas Dilger
2018-04-28  5:26       ` Steve French
2018-04-28 13:59         ` Goldwyn Rodrigues

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: copy_file_range and user space tools to do copy fastest' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).