On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:36 AM, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, August 10, 2010 16:41, Dave Pacheco wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>> If that turns out to be the problem, that'll be annoying to work around
>>> (I'm making snapshots every two hours and deleting them after a couple
>>> of
>>> weeks). Locks between admin scripts rarely end well, in my experience.
>>> But at least I'd know what I had to work around.
I've had good luck with locks (eventually), but they are not trivial
if you want them to be robust. It usually takes a bunch of trial and
error for me.
>>> Am I looking for too much here? I *thought* I was doing something that
>>> should be simple and basic and frequently used nearly everywhere, and
>>> hence certain to work. "What could go wrong?", I thought :-). If I'm
>>> doing something inherently dicey I can try to find a way to back off; as
>>> my primary backup process, this needs to be rock-solid.
It looks like you are trying to do a full send every time, what about
a first full then incremental (which should be much faster) ? The
first full might run afoul of the 2 hour snapshots (and deletions),
but I would not expect the incremental to. I am syncing about 20 TB of
data between sites this way every 4 hours over a 100 Mb link. I put
the snapshot management and the site to site replication in the same
script to keep them from fighting :-)
--
{--------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
