From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from len.romanrm.net ([91.121.75.85]:50502 "EHLO len.romanrm.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751466AbdKNIVp (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:21:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:21:42 +0500 From: Roman Mamedov To: Marat Khalili Cc: Dave , Linux fs Btrfs Subject: Re: Need help with incremental backup strategy (snapshots, defragmentingt & performance) Message-ID: <20171114132142.2c30cd8e@natsu> In-Reply-To: References: <20171101101510.218eeead@natsu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:14:55 +0300 Marat Khalili wrote: > Don't keep snapshots under rsync target, place them under ../snapshots > (if snapper supports this): > Or, specify them in --exclude and avoid using --delete-excluded. Both are good suggestions, in my case each system does have its own snapshots as well, but they are retained for much shorter. So I both use --exclude to avoid fetching the entire /snaps tree from the source system, and store snapshots of the destination system outside of the rsync target dirs. >Or keep using -x if it works, why not? -x will exclude content of all subvolumes down the tree on the source side -- not only the time-based ones. If you take care to never casually create any subvolumes content of which you'd still want backed up, then I guess it can work. -- With respect, Roman