ZFS replication basics at http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=984 Regards
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote: > > [...] > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
