From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:54183 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752457Ab3HCQ5Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Aug 2013 12:57:24 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V5f8s-0002Nz-Ap for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:57:22 +0200 Received: from host-091-097-227-150.ewe-ip-backbone.de ([91.97.227.150]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:57:22 +0200 Received: from hurikhan77+btrfs by host-091-097-227-150.ewe-ip-backbone.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:57:22 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Kai Krakow Subject: Re: Which better: rsync or snapshot + rsync --delete Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:54:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Martin schrieb: > Which is 'best' or 'faster'? > > Take a snapshot of an existing backup and then "rsync --delete" into > that to make a backup of some other filesystem? > > Or use "rsync --link" to link a new backup tree against a previous > backup tree for the some other filesystem? I'm doing it vice-versa... I rsync --inplace --delete to a scratch area and only then after that finished without errors, I'm taking a snapshot of that. That way I always know the snapshots are in good and consistent state while the scratch area is just playground for in-progress backups. Just in case you are curious, here's the gist: https://gist.github.com/kakra/5520370 Using inplace and no-whole-file options ensures space-efficient snapshots. I don't worry about fragmentation, it's only the backup drive. It doesn't matter if it's fragmented and thus a little bit slower, it only matters restore works fine. It is using systemd for automation but feel free to call it from cron... HTH Kai