On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Damjan Perenic<damjan.pere...@guest.arnes.si> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Richard > Elling<richard.ell...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:39 AM, Ed Spencer wrote: >> >>> I suspect that if we 'rsync' one of these filesystems to a second >>> server/pool that we would also see a performance increase equal to what >>> we see on the development server. (I don't know how zfs send a receive >>> work so I don't know if it would address this "Filesystem Entropy" or >>> specifically reorganize the files and directories). However, when we >>> created a testfs filesystem in the zfs pool on the production server, >>> and copied data to it, we saw the same performance as the other >>> filesystems, in the same pool. >> >> Directory walkers, like NetBackup or rsync, will not scale well as >> the number of files increases. It doesn't matter what file system you >> use, the scalability will look more-or-less similar. For millions of files, >> ZFS send/receive works much better. More details are in my paper. > > It would be nice if ZFS had something similar to VxFS File Change Log. > This feature is very useful for incremental backups and other > directory walkers, providing they support FCL.
I think this tangent deserves its own thread. :) To save a trip to google... http://sfdoccentral.symantec.com/sf/5.0MP3/linux/manpages/vxfs/man1m/fcladm.html This functionality would come in very handy. It would seem that it isn't too big of a deal to identify the files that changed, as this type of data is already presented via "zpool status -v" when corruption is detected. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbctx?a=view -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
