Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:45:25 -0500 From: Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us> To: questions@freebsd.org Cc: svein-freebsd-questions@theloosingend.net, Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> Subject: Re: rsync and moving files [Re: backup w/ snapshots] Message-ID: <43133BA5.2010608@scls.lib.wi.us> In-Reply-To: <20050829170053.M3014@maren.thelosingend.net> References: <20050828234043.H22315@maren.thelosingend.net> <20050829161506.E2522@maren.thelosingend.net> <43131C85.1070100@meijome.net> <20050829170053.M3014@maren.thelosingend.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Svein Halvor Halvorsen wrote: > But: If I move the file from /foo/test to /bar/test on my main computer, > rsync will create a BRAND NEW FILE in /bar (and delete the file in /foo, > since I used the --delete option). Now this NEW file will have a new > inode, and cover new sectors on disk. The snapshot will then tak > considerable more diskspace. If I move a large directory tree this way, > this will occupy huge amounts of diskspace. Eh? Bad assumptions about snapshots, I think. If a snapshot occupied even a tenth of the space of the data that it represented, we would quickly fill all our disks and the snapshot technology would be almost as painful as useful. A snapshot is essentially only an index of occupied disk space, not a copy of the actual data, and a snapshot is therefore much, much, much, much smaller than the data files that have changed. Read the relevant man pages and handbook sections again, and test your assumptions by measuring the actual change in snapshot size. I don't think your perceived problem really exists. -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) Library Interchange Network (LINK) <gregb at scls.lib.wi.us>, (608) 266-6348
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43133BA5.2010608>