Re: [Jfs-discussion] first experiences with JFS
Brought to you by:
blaschke-oss,
shaggyk
From: <pg...@jf...> - 2005-09-16 14:30:10
|
[ ... ] >> All which leads to think that not many people have used non >> default log sizes, or used JFS with FAT32 or massive 'dd'ing, >> or with 'noatime'... :-) per> Nope, haven't tried any of the above Not surprising... :-). per> - for copying filesystems around, I tend to use rsync per> instead of dd. RSYNC is a bit slow though, especially same machine. I'll list some faster alternatives in case someone reading this may benefit... Most of the time I do partition image (disc-to-disc) backups, and actually using something a bit faster than 'dd', roughly equivalent to a double 'dd' like: dd if=/dev/hda6 bs=4k | dd bs=4k of=/dev/hdc6 for example. This gives me something like 25MiB/s sustained, which is not bad (around 15MiB sustained over FireWire); it also elegantly bypasses encryption layers etc, which are often slow. For full file-by-file copy I prefer the classic double 'tar': (cd /mnt/hda6 && tar -cS --one -b 8 -f - .) \ | (cd /mnt/hdc6 && tar -xS -p -b 8 -f -) with some GNU 'tar' specific options, and which usually gives me (on filesystems that are not too used0 something like 15-20MiB/s on ATA. After either an image or 'tar' backup one can use RSYNC, especially in '-c' (checksum) mode to verify the data. Incremental/differential backups can then be done if preferred using something like http://WWW.rsnapshot.com/ which is based on RSYNC. Sorry if I have just preached to the choir here :-). |