From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 20 08:29:39 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C3C106566C for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 08:29:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020378FC1A for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 08:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:c0e1:7989:b1b9:78c3]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 25E924AC1C; Fri, 20 May 2011 12:29:37 +0400 (MSD) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:29:33 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov Organization: FreeBSD Project X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <795474996.20110520122933@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: Kirk McKusick In-Reply-To: <201105200316.p4K3G6EU039569@chez.mckusick.com> References: <1606289061.20110519211755@serebryakov.spb.ru> <201105200316.p4K3G6EU039569@chez.mckusick.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Snapshots fail on large FFS2 volumes regulary -- how to backup /usr/home?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:29:39 -0000 Hello, Kirk. You wrote 20 =EC=E0=FF 2011 =E3., 7:16:06: > Given the size of your storage, you should consider using ZFS > which is better able to handle such large systems better. Yes, I know, that everybody loves ZFS now, but it doesn't have two characteristics which is important for my installation: (1) nodump flag or any other way to mark directories and files as not-importand for backup. "zfs send" is all-or-nothing solution, and now my users use "nodump" to reduce backup sizes greatly. (2) Incremental backups with a little of local information (zfs send can send difference between snapshots, but system needs to store old snapshot for this). Second one is not so important yet, because there is a lot of free space, but "zfs send" could not do anything with (1) :( All other backups solutions doesn't store full FS information, as works on file level, not FS one :( > My second suggestion is that you try building UFS2 with 32K > blocks and 4K fragments. That will reduce the number of resources > needed to take the snapshot. I'll try this. But I remember, that some time ago (about 7.1-STABLE) there was deadlock in kernel memory allocator when different UFSes on system uses different block sizes... --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov