YMMV. At a recent LOSUG meeting we were told of a case where rsync was
faster than an incremental zfs send/recv. But I think that was for a
mail server with many tiny files (i.e. changed blocks are very easy to
find in files with very few blocks).
However, I don't see why further ZFS perfomance work couldn't close
that gap, since rsync will always need to compare directories and
timestamps.
Phil
On 18 Jan 2010, at 08:07, Edward Ned Harvey <sola...@nedharvey.com>
wrote:
I still believe that a set of compressed incremental star archives
give
you
more features.
Big difference there is that in order to create an incremental star
archive,
star has to walk the whole filesystem or folder that's getting
backed up,
and do a "stat" on every file to see which files have changed since
the last
backup run. If you have a large filesystem, that can take a very
long time.
I recently switched to ZFS specifically for this reason.
Previously, I was
doing a nightly rsync on 1Tb of data. It required 10 hrs every
night to
run, and copy typically a few hundred megs that had changed that
day. Now,
I run incremental zfs send & receive, and it completes typically in
a minute
or two.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
