> > Why not make a snapshots on a production and then send incremental
> > backups over net? Especially with a lot of files it should be MUCH
> > faster than rsync.
> >
> because its a ZFS limited solution, if the source is not ZFS it won't
> work, and i'm not sure how much faster incrementals woul
Dick Davies wrote:
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. The architectural benefits of 'zfs send' over rsync only apply to
sending incremental changes. When sending a full backup, both schemes
have to traverse all the metadata and send all the data, so the *should*
be about the same speed.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:51:45PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
> On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
>
> That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
> certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webs
Dick Davies wrote:
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed the zfs send/recv
t
James Dickens wrote:
Why not make a snapshots on a production and then send incremental
backups over net? Especially with a lot of files it should be MUCH
faster than rsync.
because its a ZFS limited solution, if the source is not ZFS it won't
work, and i'm not sure how much faster incrementals
On 8/30/06, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, August 29, 2006, 9:35:13 PM, you wrote:
JAH> On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
>> ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
>>
>> I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
>> aweso
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, August 29, 2006, 9:35:13 PM, you wrote:
JAH> On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
>> ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
>>
>> I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
>> awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
>>
>> St
On 8/29/06, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
If you combine this with a de-duplication algorithm you could get
really space-efficient backups.
Suppose you have 100 (or 1000, or 1) machines to back up that are
the same 3 GB OS image + mixed bag of a
On 30/08/2006, at 5:17 AM, James Dickens wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
Start with a one or two large SATA/PATA drives if you use two and
don't need the space y
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 02:17:06PM -0500, James Dickens wrote:
> ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I've long thought that network filesystem protocols could implement
portion of the rsync algorithm, namely:
- servers could compute rsync rolling CRC file checksums
- ZFS could do it at the lowe
On August 29, 2006 3:17:21 PM -0500 James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/29/06, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On August 29, 2006 2:17:06 PM -0500 James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
Seems to me 'zfs send | zfs recv' would be both faster
On 8/29/06, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On August 29, 2006 2:17:06 PM -0500 James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
Seems to me 'zfs send | zfs recv' would be both faster and more efficient.
only if you assume, the source is ZFS, with rsync and z
On August 29, 2006 2:17:06 PM -0500 James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
Seems to me 'zfs send | zfs recv' would be both faster and more efficient.
-frank
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
h
On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
Start with a one or two large SATA/PATA drives if you use two and
don't need the spac
ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
Start with a one or two large SATA/PATA drives if you use two and
don't need the space you can mirror other wise just use as in raid0,
en
17 matches
Mail list logo
