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 the zfs send/recv
to be about 5x slower than rsync for the initial copy.
You're saying subsequent copies (zfs send -i?) should be faster?
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.
However, as I mentioned, there's still some low-hanging performance
issues with 'zfs send', although I'm surprised that it was 5x slower
than rsync! I'd like to look into that issue some more... What type of
files were you sending? Eg. approximately what size files, how many
files, how many files/directory?
--matt
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
