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.
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.