On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 07:35 -0400, Mag Gam wrote: > How does this replication feature compare to rsync in performance and > ease of use?
I don't know the details of our replication feature, but I understand the concepts at a high level. The major difference between the replication feature and rsync will be that the replication service will be "fed" the changes on the filesystem by Lustre rather than it having to periodically scan the entire filesystem trying to find the changes. That's a huge win in terms of both time and resources. Rsync becomes unusable with very large filesystem due to both the time and memory required. It's entirely feasible that rsync could be used as a/the transport for a/the replication feature as rsync can be given a list of files to operate on rather than scanning a filesystem. Whether that's what our replication feature does or not, I don't know. All of this is made possible by another upcoming feature, which is changelogs. Changelogs is a cool feature in and of itself. In fact I *really* wish I could get this same feature out of the more simple, single disk filesystems, like ext3/4 as another really useful tool for it is backups (which I suppose is just another flavour of replication, albeit with an intentional delay). b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
