On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Brent Jones <br...@servuhome.net> wrote:
> I'd personally say send/recv would be more efficient, rsync is awfully > slow on large data sets. But, it depends what build you are using! > BugID 6418042 (slow zfs send/recv) was fixed in build 105, it impacted > send/recv operations local to remote, not sure if it happens local to > local, but I experienced it doing local-remote send/recv. > > Not sure the best way to handle moving data around, when space is > tight though... Well one thing is - I've never used send/recv before first off, and I'm comfortable with rsync - and rsync 3.x is a hell of a lot more efficient too with large amounts of files. Although most of these are large files, not large file counts. I'd probably try to upgrade this to snv_110 at the same time and update the zpool format too while I'm at it. Hopefully it would resolve any possible oddities... and not introduce new ones. Like how I can't install snv_110 on my other machine properly, it just gives me a grub prompt on reboot, it doesn't seem to install zfs root properly or something. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
