Richard Elling wrote: > Paul B. Henson wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Paul B. Henson wrote: >> >>> I've read a number of threads and blog posts discussing zfs send/receive >>> and its applicability is such an implementation, but I'm curious if >>> anyone has actually done something like that in practice, and if so how >>> well it worked. >> So I didn't hear from anyone on this thread actually running such an >> implementation in production? Could someone maybe comment on a theoretical >> level :) whether this would be realistic for multiple terabytes, or if I >> should just give up on it? > > It should be more reasonable to use ZFS send/recv than a dumb volume > block copy. It should be on the same order of goodness as rsync-style > copying. I use send/recv quite often, but my wife doesn't have a TByte > of pictures (yet :-)
Incremental zfs send/recv is actually orders of magnitude "more goodness" than rsync (due to much faster finding of changed files). I know of customers who are using send|ssh|recv to replicate entire thumpers across the country, in production. I'm sure they'll speak up here if/when they find this thread... --matt _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
