On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:50:25PM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > So I used to use hardlinks to do historical backups of the same filesystem > but I know it's preferable to use refllink with btrfs to avoid having too > many hardlinks. If you use btrfstune to set the "extended inode refs" option on the device, then there's no hardlink limit (and the limit was only on the number of hardlinks to the same thing *in the same directory*). > But if I need to backup this filesystem to another one some other way than > btrfs send/receive (let's say cp -a, tar, or rsync), is it correct to say > that reflink relationships will be lost and my data will take more space? > > That is unless the target filesytem can do deduplication like btrs now can? > (I haven't tried it yet, but it's about time that I do) Correct. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 65E74AC0 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- vi vi vi: the Editor of the Beast. ---
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
