Hello Peter, Sunday, April 20, 2008, 7:47:31 PM, you wrote:
>> How does 'zfs send' performance compare with a traditional incremental >> backup system? PT> I haven't done that particular comparison. (zfs send isn't useful for backup PT> - doesn't span tapes, doesn't hold an index of the files.) But I have compared PT> it against various varieties of tar for moving data between machines, and PT> the performance of 'zfs send' wasn't particularly good - I ended up using PT> tar instead. (Maybe lots of smallish files again.) PT> For incrementals, it may be useful. But that presumes a replicated PT> configuration (preferably with the other node at a DR site), rather than PT> use in backups. Over a year ago I compared Legato incremental with zfs send incremental on x4500 with a lot of small files. zfs send (incremental) was dramatically quicker. -- 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
