On 6.5.2013, at 18.03, Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-06 10:54 AM, Timo Sirainen <t...@iki.fi> wrote: >> On 30.4.2013, at 12.22, Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfr...@tanso.net> wrote: >>> Wasn't there also some issue with cleanup of attachments ? Not being able >>> to delete the last copy, or something. I did some testing of using SIS on a >>> backup dsync destination a year (or two) ago, and got quite confused.. >>> Don't quite remember the problems I had, but I did lose confidence in it >>> and decided having the attachement together with the messages felt safest. >>> >>> I would also love to hear from admins using it on large scale (100K+ active >>> users). Maybe we should reconsider using it.. > >> I'm not aware of any bugs in SIS, but yeah, it can be a bit complicated. If >> you do things like dsync where destination is also mdbox/sdbox, it's going >> to keep using the same SIS directory and updating the refcounts, which you >> probably don't want for backups / temp directories (solution: give different >> parameters to the two sides of dsync where the other side disables SIS). > > Hey Timo - so, how will rsync be affected as a backup app? Will it maintain > the deduped state in the backup target? Ideally you'd rsync from a filesystem snapshot instead of from live filesystem, otherwise the link counts might go wrong. And you need to use the -H parameter for rsync so it preserves hard links.
