xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfsdump -s unacceptable performances

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfsdump -s unacceptable performances
From: "Daniele P." <daniele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:58:11 +0200
In-reply-to: <44E3C6D5.2080704@xxxxxxx>
Organization: Interline
References: <200608161515.00543.daniele@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <200608162001.10342.daniele@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44E3C6D5.2080704@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1
On Thursday 17 August 2006 03:31, you wrote:
> Daniele P. wrote:
> > But xfsdump still doesn't scale down well with a small subtree on a
> > large filesystem.
>
> That is very true.
> It is really designed for dumping whole filesystems (or at least,
> large parts of them).
> For dumping small subtrees, I'd be looking at using something else.

Hi Timothy,
Yes, you are right, but there is another problem on my side.
The /small/ subtree of the filesystem usually contains a lot of hard 
links (our backup software uses hard links to save disk space, so 
expect one hard link per file per day) and using a generic tool like 
tar/star or rsync that uses "stat" to scan the filesysem should be 
significant slower (no test done) than a native tool like xfsdump, as 
Bill in a previous email pointed out.

It seems that there isn't a right tool for this job.

Regards,
Daniele


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>