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 <hans.van.kranenburg@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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 -- 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
