5

I routinely find that the finder is faster for local disk to disk copy operations than Rsync. For instance Rsync on a large directory (100gb with 14000 files) can take many times longer than the finder. On my setup I see it working around 20MB/sec whereas finder often gets me up into the 100+ MB/sec. I find this pretty frustrating because Rsync offers restart-ability and is much more ideal for my use case. Why is this? After all it should be the same disk io operations being performed.

Edit: Hardware involved here: 2018 maxed out MacBook Pro 15” with touchbar, 16GB ram.

Reading from internal SSD (2 TB) Writing to: OWC hardware raid 5 with 4x 6TB 7200rpm HGST drives Benchmarking writes to the raid using AJA system test is about 180MB/sec

  • 1
    What version of macOS and what filesystem is the source / destination. You can get wildly different performance based on how you have set up your Mac. Secondary importance is the storage type. – bmike Jul 27 at 14:21
  • How is the RAID connected to your Mac, which filesystems are used on both source and destination, are you copying into an empty folder or does the target folder already contain data? – nohillside Jul 28 at 18:17
  • 2
    What command line parameters of rsync are you using and what version. – user151019 Jul 28 at 18:18
  • What is the CPU utilisation in either case? – Max Ried Jul 28 at 19:22
  • Keep in mind that rsync can compare the two files (read both, write one), and finder just do a one-side read other-side write file operation. So it is less IO, which can be faster. But as @Mark mentioned, what are the rsync parameters you are using? Because this matters a lot about performance. – Prado Aug 29 at 12:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .