Hi Martin, though I can't determine which is 'better' for you because I don't know what your aims are, I can recommend 'btrfs snapshot' together with 'rsync --inplace'. It is 'better' in the sense of disk-usage, because only the modified parts of files take up space in your snapshots. That only applies if you use snapshots to retain multiple historic versions of your backups, though. The cost is more fragmentation, though snapshot-aware autodefrag (in-kernel since at least 3.10) might help out a little there, and the fact that your snapshot will be in an inconsistent state until rsync finishes successfully. Regards, Bart On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Martin <m_btrfs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > > Which case does btrfs handle the better? > > Would there be any problems for doing this over an nfs mount of the btrfs? > > > Both cases can take advantage of the raid and dedup and compression > features of btrfs. Would taking a btrfs snapshot be better than rsync > creating the hard links to unchanged files? > > Any other considerations? > > (There are perhaps about 5% new or changed files each time.) > > Thanks, > Martin > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
