Hello Matthew, Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 1:46:02 AM, you wrote:
MA> 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 :-) MA> Incremental zfs send/recv is actually orders of magnitude "more goodness" MA> than rsync (due to much faster finding of changed files). MA> I know of customers who are using send|ssh|recv to replicate entire thumpers MA> across the country, in production. I'm sure they'll speak up here if/when MA> they find this thread... I know such environment too, however just across a server room :) Is it perfect? No... but still comparing to "legacy" backup it's much better in terms of performance and much worse in terms of manageability. -- Best regards, Robert Milkowski mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
