On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Gideon <ag2827189@tagmall.com> wrote: > I'm having some difficulty following this thread, so perhaps I've missed > some other aspect to this. But the above makes it seem like you simply > wish to transport snapshots. Why not use something as straightforward as > dd for this rather than RAID1? RAID1 tools (mdadm, drbd, etc.) have the > benefit of keeping volumes in sync over time. But the above process > describes a synchronization over a single instant (the instant of the > snapshot being taken). So why bother with the extra work/capability/ > complexity? Our posts must have crossed in the mail - please see my message immediately prior to this one. > I'm also puzzled by something you wrote in your very first message on > this thread: "the hard-linked filesystems on FILER-B require full > filesystem cloning with block-level tools rather than file-level copying > or sync'ing." Why? rsync -H handles cloning of hard links (though at a > performance cost). The performance cost becomes unworkable when you are talking about a filesystem with literally millions of hardlinks, as any reasonably well-used rsnapshot/rdiff-backup/BackupPC installation will create. Perhaps my current problem will be overcome by adding 64GB of RAM to my host, but as the number of hardlinks grows. . . It is precisely this problem I'm trying to address. http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&q=backuppc+pool+rsync+hard-link _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
