From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.161.171]:32960 "EHLO mail-yw0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759946AbdACXNz (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 18:13:55 -0500 Received: by mail-yw0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r204so301607317ywb.0 for ; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:12:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <69d0539f-6cb4-644f-2e7e-16bb1575052e@mendix.com> References: <0d0a4169-8c09-56c5-a052-0c894c46081c@gmail.com> <69d0539f-6cb4-644f-2e7e-16bb1575052e@mendix.com> From: Peter Becker Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:12:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [markfasheh/duperemove] Why blocksize is limit to 1MB? To: Hans van Kranenburg Cc: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" , linux-btrfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Good hint, this would be an option and i will try this. Regardless of this the curiosity has packed me and I will try to figure out where the problem with the low transfer rate is. 2017-01-04 0:07 GMT+01:00 Hans van Kranenburg : > On 01/03/2017 08:24 PM, Peter Becker wrote: >> All invocations are justified, but not relevant in (offline) backup >> and archive scenarios. >> >> For example you have multiple version of append-only log-files or >> append-only db-files (each more then 100GB in size), like this: >> >>> Snapshot_01_01_2017 >> -> file1.log .. 201 GB >> >>> Snapshot_02_01_2017 >> -> file1.log .. 205 GB >> >>> Snapshot_03_01_2017 >> -> file1.log .. 221 GB >> >> The first 201 GB would be every time the same. >> Files a copied at night from windows, linux or bsd systems and >> snapshoted after copy. > > XY problem? > > Why not use rsync --inplace in combination with btrfs snapshots? Even if > the remote does not support rsync and you need to pull the full file > first, you could again use rsync locally. > > -- > Hans van Kranenburg