Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-27 Thread Andrew Gideon
On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:02:53 +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > The important thing is that all > the data is from the same point in time. That's what I was thinking, and there are numerous tools which support this at the file system/volume level. One consideration, though, is that snapsho

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-26 Thread Matthias Schniedermeyer
On 26.05.2009 02:17, Andrew Gideon wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 00:45:09 +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > On the other hand the quiescent and device/filesystem snapshotting > > results in a rsyncable copy. > > Another possibility is to have the files on a volume or file system that >

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-25 Thread Andrew Gideon
On Sun, 24 May 2009 00:45:09 +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On the other hand the quiescent and device/filesystem snapshotting > results in a rsyncable copy. Another possibility is to have the files on a volume or file system that supports snapshots. That won't guarantee "quiescent", b

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-23 Thread Matthias Schniedermeyer
On 23.05.2009 17:32, Ming Zhang wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Schniedermeyer > wrote: > > On 23.05.2009 08:44, Ming Zhang wrote: > >> > > >> > No. The block size is NEVER relevant for a copy via rsync, bits are bits > >> > regardless of you copying them bit by bit or in larg

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-23 Thread Ming Zhang
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On 23.05.2009 08:44, Ming Zhang wrote: >> > >> > No. The block size is NEVER relevant for a copy via rsync, bits are bits >> > regardless of you copying them bit by bit or in larger groups. >> > >> >> please have a read >> http://w

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-23 Thread Matthias Schniedermeyer
On 23.05.2009 08:44, Ming Zhang wrote: > > > > No. The block size is NEVER relevant for a copy via rsync, bits are bits > > regardless of you copying them bit by bit or in larger groups. > > > > please have a read > http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/berkeley-db/db/ref/transapp/archiva

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-23 Thread Ming Zhang
> > No. The block size is NEVER relevant for a copy via rsync, bits are bits > regardless of you copying them bit by bit or in larger groups. > please have a read http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/berkeley-db/db/ref/transapp/archival.html see the db page size issue when copy a online

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-23 Thread Matthias Schniedermeyer
On 22.05.2009 20:30, Ming Zhang wrote: > it become a BDD question now.. ;) > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > On 22.05.2009 16:25, Ming Zhang wrote: > >> Hi All > >> > >> We want to use rsync to backup a live Berkley db to a remote site. BDB > >> has a require

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-22 Thread Ming Zhang
it become a BDD question now.. ;) On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On 22.05.2009 16:25, Ming Zhang wrote: >> Hi All >> >> We want to use rsync to backup a live Berkley db to a remote site. BDB >> has a requirement that read has to be in the unit of db page size. S

Re: rsync read block size

2009-05-22 Thread Matthias Schniedermeyer
On 22.05.2009 16:25, Ming Zhang wrote: > Hi All > > We want to use rsync to backup a live Berkley db to a remote site. BDB > has a requirement that read has to be in the unit of db page size. So > wonder how could we make sure that rsync can follow that? If we need > to change the code, where we s