On Wed, August 11, 2010 15:11, Paul Kraus wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:36 AM, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> 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 :-) What I'm working on is, in fact, the first backup. I intended from the start to use incrementals; they just didn't work in earlier versions, and I was reduced to doing full backups only. And I need a successful full backup to start the series, and to initialize any new backup media, and so forth. So I think I have to solve this problem, even if most of the backups will be incrementals. Mostly the incrementals should be quite fast -- but I can come home from a weekend away with 30 GB or so of photos, which would appear on the server all at once. Still, that's well under 2 hours. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
