Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:53:39 +0200 From: Eric Masson <e-masson@kisoft-services.com> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, "Thomas E. Zander" <riggs@rrr.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mksnap_ffs takes 4-5 minutes? Message-ID: <86irz32bh8.fsf@srvbsdnanssv.interne.kisoft-services.com> In-Reply-To: <42E0E39E.8020009@centtech.com> (Eric Anderson's message of "Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:16:30 -0500") References: <42DD64AB.3000605@centtech.com> <20050720094830.GR782@marvin.riggiland.au> <42DE3C1F.9070704@centtech.com> <20050720130523.GT782@marvin.riggiland.au> <42E0E39E.8020009@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> writes: Hi, > I know for certain that one test filesystem (2Tb) had nothing on it, > no processess using the filesystem at all, and it took well over an > hour to run mksnap on it. I made some tests on a Dell PowerVault 725N with ŕ 5.2 about a year and a half ago. Snapshots on a 700GB filesystem were taking roughly half an hour. > Maybe mksnap is broken somehow? Don't think broken is the right term, but it surely lacks optimization on huge filesystems when compared to snapshots on a netapp filer (5 seconds on a terabyte volume for example). For medium size fs like the 80B I'm using here on my desktop box, approximately 30 seconds seems reasonable to me. Shorter time would be welcome, sure ;) Éric Masson -- Contresens. Le contenu de la signature doit respecter la charte du NG sur *tous* les sujets. Aussi bien la pub que la Netiquette. C'est pas une zone de non-droit, les 4 lignes de signature. -+- Lapin in <www.le-gnu.net> : Oui-Oui casque bleu ŕ Neuneuland -+-
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86irz32bh8.fsf>