[...] Harry wrote: >> Now I'm wondering if the export/import sub commands might not be a >> good bit faster. >> Ian Collins <i...@ianshome.com> answered: > I think you are thinking of zfs send/receive. > > I've never done a direct comparison, but zfs send/receive would be my > preferred way to move data between pools.
Why is that? I'm too new to know what all it encompasses (and a bit dense to boot) "Fajar A. Nugraha" <fa...@fajar.net> writes: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> Now I'm wondering if the export/import sub commands might not be a >> good bit faster. > > I believe the greatest advantage of zfs send/receive over rsync is not > about speed, but rather it's on "zfs send -R", which would (from man > page) > > Generate a replication stream package, which will > replicate the specified filesystem, and all descen- > dant file systems, up to the named snapshot. When > received, all properties, snapshots, descendent file > systems, and clones are preserved. > > pretty much allows you to clone a complete pool preserving its structure. > As usual, compressing the backup stream (whether rsync or zfs) might > help reduce transfer time a lot. My favorite is lzop (since it's very > fast), but gzip should work as well. > Nice... good reasons it appears. Robert Milkowski <mi...@task.gda.pl> writes: > Hello Harry, [...] > As Ian pointed you want zfs send|receive and not import/export. > For a first full copy zfs send not necessarily will be noticeably > faster than rsync but it depends on data. If for example you have > milions of small files zfs send could be much faster then rsync. > But it shouldn't be slower in any case. > > zfs send|receive really shines when it comes to sending incremental > changes. Now that would be something to make it stand out. Can you tell me a bit more about that would work..I mean would you just keep receiving only changes at one end and how do they appear on the filesystem. There is a backup tool called `rsnapshot' that uses rsync but creates hard links to all unchanged files and moves only changes to changed files. This is all put in a serial directory system and ends up taking a tiny fraction of the space that full backups would take, yet retains a way to get to unchanged files right in the same directory (the hard link). Is what your talking about similar in some way. ===== * ===== * ===== * ===== To all posters... many thanks for the input. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
