I wouldn't use dirvish without [btrfs] any more, because without the patch the expiration stage takes ages. With the patch, it happens instantly.Well, it seems to happen instantly. The actual cleanup in the backgroundcan still take hours.
Ok... I didn't notice that in the last year. Maybe I'm missing something? btrfs-cleaner runs in the background afaik. Anyhow: Expiration with ext4 took so long, that I could run only one backup per day or I would get errors. With btrfs, I'm running four backups/day without any problems.
I have experimented with this, although that was a long time ago. At that point, the btrfs background cleanup / garbage collection started to take more that 24 hours so I ended up with not being able to write new backups because even though it looked like there was enough space, btrfsreturned ENOSPACE.
Interesting - just the other way round :D
...with the following changes: - don't use rsync --inplace to prevent fragmentation(also see http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg40354.html)The followup https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg40355.htmlcontradicts a lot of the arguments against --inplace.
As I tried to emphasize, I didn't write the patches. So I have to admit that I read that thread only after you pointed out this discussion. But as I understood it, the discussion ended with "don't use --inline"...
I wonder whether anything smart with LVM snapshots together with dirvishcould be done...
Or with ZFS... cu -- Markus Grunwald https://www.the-grue.de/~markus/markus_grunwald.gpg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
