Should I set that as rsync's block size?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
BJ Quinn wrote:
> Oh. Yup, I had figured this out on my own but forgot to post back.
> --inplace accomplishes what we're talking about. --no-whole-file is also
> necessary if copying files locally (not over the network), because rsync does
> default to only copying changed blocks, but it over
Oh. Yup, I had figured this out on my own but forgot to post back. --inplace
accomplishes what we're talking about. --no-whole-file is also necessary if
copying files locally (not over the network), because rsync does default to
only copying changed blocks, but it overrides that default behav
Al Tobey wrote:
> Rsync can update in-place. From rsync(1):
> --inplace update destination files in-place
>
Whee! This is now newly working (for me). I've been using an older
rsync, where this option didn't work properly on ZFS.
It looks like this was fixed on new
Rsync can update in-place. From rsync(1):
--inplace update destination files in-place
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/lis
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:43:18AM -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
> I _really_ wish rsync had an option to "copy in place" or something like
> that, where the updates are made directly to the file, rather than a
> temp copy.
Isn't this what --inplace does?
--
albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
__
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Erik Trimble wrote:
>
> One note here for ZFS users:
>
> On ZFS (or any other COW filesystem), rsync unfortunately does NOT do the
> "Right Thing" when syncing an existing file. From ZFS's standpoint, the most
> efficient way would be merely to rewrite the changed blocks, th
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, BJ Quinn wrote:
>
>
>> Here's an idea - I understand that I need rsync on both sides if I
>> want to minimize network traffic. What if I don't care about that -
>> the entire file can come over the network, but I specifically only
>> want rsync t
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, BJ Quinn wrote:
> Here's an idea - I understand that I need rsync on both sides if I
> want to minimize network traffic. What if I don't care about that -
> the entire file can come over the network, but I specifically only
> want rsync to write the changed blocks to disk.
Here's an idea - I understand that I need rsync on both sides if I want to
minimize network traffic. What if I don't care about that - the entire file
can come over the network, but I specifically only want rsync to write the
changed blocks to disk. Does rsync offer a mode like that?
--
This
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Will Murnane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 20:54, BJ Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. Dedup is what I really want, but it's not implemented yet.
> Yes, as I read it. greenBytes [1] claims to have dedup on their
> system; you might inv
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 20:54, BJ Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Dedup is what I really want, but it's not implemented yet.
Yes, as I read it. greenBytes [1] claims to have dedup on their
system; you might investigate them if you decide rsync won't work for
your application.
> 2. The onl
Thank you both for your responses. Let me see if I understand correctly -
1. Dedup is what I really want, but it's not implemented yet.
2. The only other way to accomplish this sort of thing is rsync (in other
words, don't overwrite the block in the first place if it's not different), and
i
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:51, BJ Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe rsync can do this, but some of the servers in question are Windows
> servers and rsync/cygwin might not be an option.
I'd check to make sure rsync has the correct behavior first, but there
is a Windows-based rsync daemo
I think what you define IS dedup. You can search the archieves for
dedup.
Best regards
Mertol
Sent from a mobile device
Mertol Ozyoney
On 17.Kas.2008, at 18:51, BJ Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're considering using an OpenSolaris server as a backup server.
> Some of the servers to
We're considering using an OpenSolaris server as a backup server. Some of the
servers to be backed up would be Linux and Windows servers, and potentially
Windows desktops as well. What I had imagined was that we could copy files
over to the ZFS-based server nightly, take a snapshot, and only t
16 matches
Mail list logo
