[zfs-discuss] Can this be done?

[Michael Shadle]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Brent Jones <brent at servuhome.net> wrote:

> I'd personally say send/recv would be more efficient, rsync is awfully
> slow on large data sets. But, it depends what build you are using!
> BugID 6418042 (slow zfs send/recv) was fixed in build 105, it impacted
> send/recv operations local to remote, not sure if it happens local to
> local, but I experienced it doing local-remote send/recv.
>
> Not sure the best way to handle moving data around, when space is
> tight though...

Well one thing is - I've never used send/recv before first off, and
I'm comfortable with rsync - and rsync 3.x is a hell of a lot more
efficient too with large amounts of files. Although most of these are
large files, not large file counts.

I'd probably try to upgrade this to snv_110 at the same time and
update the zpool format too while I'm at it. Hopefully it would
resolve any possible oddities... and not introduce new ones. Like how
I can't install snv_110 on my other machine properly, it just gives me
a grub prompt on reboot, it doesn't seem to install zfs root properly
or something.