From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.jrs-s.net ([173.230.137.22]:49994 "EHLO mail.jrs-s.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753338Ab3K0UI6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:08:58 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.50] (mail.coastalscience.com [66.83.151.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jim@jrs-s.net) by mail.jrs-s.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18C7CD2A8 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:08:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5296516E.8000201@jrs-s.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:09:18 -0500 From: Jim Salter MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: btrfs send size Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi list - Long time ZFS guy here trying to move everything over from ZFS to btrfs, which entails a lot of re-scripting and re-learning. Question of the day: how can I determine the size of a btrfs send operation before hand? I'd like to be able to provide a progress bar (I'm accustomed to using pv to do this), but I would need to know a rough approximation at least of how much data I'm going to transfer in order to be able to do that. Under ZFS, you can do this: root@box:~# zfs send -nvi data/images@autosnap_2013-11-27_14:00:01_hourly data/images@autosnap_2013-11-27_15:00:01_hourly send from @autosnap_2013-11-27_14:00:01_hourly to data/images@autosnap_2013-11-27_15:00:01_hourly estimated size is 42.7M total estimated size is 42.7M Which then lets me do this: root@box:~# zfs send -i data/images@autosnap_2013-11-27_14:00:01_hourly data/images@autosnap_2013-11-27_15:00:01_hourly | pv -s 42.7M | ssh otherbox zfs receive backup/images And get a nice progress bar. I can't find a manpage for the btrfs command that lists ANY information about btrfs send, and I haven't found anything online about doing a size check on send operations without actually sending the data. Anybody got any help for this? This is officially a Big Deal for those of us who customarily do asynchronous replication, so it would be really, really awesome if this could get addressed. =) Thank you!