On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Frederic MASSOT
<frederic AT juliana-multimedia DOT com> wrote:
>
> But now it is very slow, the speed is closer to 1 GB in 12 hours, or
> more. It remains to be copied 200 GB, I can not wait 100 days!
>
> Copy of "cpool" and "log" was performed, the slowness comes from the
> copy of "pc" and certainly hardlinks.
>
>
> - Is that the copy will still be slow, it will get worse and worse?
>
> - Is that rsync is faster than cp to copy data with hardlinks?

There is just no good way to do this.  The problem is that the copy
has to track the hardlinks by matching the inode numbers in massive
tables, and then seek all over the place updating the target entries.
 And you've made it even worse if you have the source and destination
filesystems on the same physical disks.    If you don't do a huge
number of restores, it is usually better to just keep the old archive
around and offline for emergencies and let the new copy build its own
history from scratch.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/