Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:29:33 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Snapshots fail on large FFS2 volumes regulary -- how to backup /usr/home?! Message-ID: <795474996.20110520122933@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <201105200316.p4K3G6EU039569@chez.mckusick.com> References: <1606289061.20110519211755@serebryakov.spb.ru> <201105200316.p4K3G6EU039569@chez.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Kirk.
You wrote 20 =EC=E0=FF 2011 =E3., 7:16:06:
> Given the size of your storage, you should consider using ZFS
> which is better able to handle such large systems better.
Yes, I know, that everybody loves ZFS now, but it doesn't have two
characteristics which is important for my installation:
(1) nodump flag or any other way to mark directories and files as
not-importand for backup. "zfs send" is all-or-nothing solution, and
now my users use "nodump" to reduce backup sizes greatly.
(2) Incremental backups with a little of local information (zfs send
can send difference between snapshots, but system needs to store old
snapshot for this).
Second one is not so important yet, because there is a lot of free space,
but "zfs send" could not do anything with (1) :(
All other backups solutions doesn't store full FS information, as
works on file level, not FS one :(
> My second suggestion is that you try building UFS2 with 32K
> blocks and 4K fragments. That will reduce the number of resources
> needed to take the snapshot.
I'll try this. But I remember, that some time ago (about 7.1-STABLE)
there was deadlock in kernel memory allocator when different UFSes
on system uses different block sizes...
--=20
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?795474996.20110520122933>