> I haven't done that particular comparison. (zfs send isn't useful for backup > - doesn't span tapes, doesn't hold an index of the files.) But I have compared > it against various varieties of tar for moving data between machines, and > the performance of 'zfs send' wasn't particularly good - I ended up using > tar instead. (Maybe lots of smallish files again.)
FWIW, we're using a small ksh script with zfs snapshotting and incremental send/recv to keep a rolling backup of our fileserver (0.9Tb in total and growing) to another machine. They're both running quad-core Intels with SATA disks, nothing fancy, and they cope very well. Whilst this isn't directly comparable to backing up your 24Tb on a Thumper, it shows that zfs send/recv *can* be used effectively in a backup strategy. In comparison to our old strategy with rsync, we have equivalent hardware redundancy, 4x the number of backups, near-zero file restore time and backups that complete in 1/12 of the time. Which makes for happy systems administrators. Chris _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
