> > 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 would be than > rsysnc since rsync only shares checksums untill it finds a block that > has changed.
At small sizes, everything may be fine. But here are two things I would watch out for when doing this. #1 Rsync can run into problems on very large (# of files) filesystems. I've used rsync to copy some pretty big datasets. I had some where rsync would take a couple of hours before even starting to send data because it had to run the entire filesystem first. (This has nothing to do with ZFS). #2 Rsync tries to minimize the network transport, not local I/O. If you have small files, this isn't a problem. If you have large DB files, it might be. While rsync can detect that only a small number of blocks have changed, it will attempt to update that file atomically on the target machine. It does this by using a temporary file and renaming it after completing any updates. ZFS will see this as a completely new file, losing potential space savings from snapshots. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
