On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Phil Harman <phil.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > > The best info i've read on this was on this blog: http://richardelling.blogspot.com/2009/01/parallel-zfs-sendreceive.html > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
