Re: Does the Slave pfs take up more space that the Master?

[Sdävtaker <sdavtaker@xxxxxxxxx>]

What i remember happened to me was that master pfs are pruned/reblocked by the periodic but the slave pfs are not, so time to time i used to get a lot of used space in my backups, just go and prune/reblock by hand and check if thats what happening to you, check the config before, so you sure not deleting stuff you dont want to.

Damian

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:03, Siju George <sgeorge.ml@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I have two hammer file systems.

Backup1                   454G   281G   173G    62%    /Backup1
Backup2                   454G   316G   138G    70%    /Backup2

on a 2.7-DEVELOPMENT DragonFly v2.7.0.54.g0754fe-DEVELOPMENT #18: Wed Apr  7

Backup1 contains 3 pfses

dfly-bkpsrv# cd /Backup1
dfly-bkpsrv# ls -l
total 0
drwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  0 Mar 26 13:38 Data
drwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  0 Apr  5 15:36 VersionControl
drwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  0 Oct  8  2009 pfs
drwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  0 Feb  3 09:46 test

Backup2 contains just the mirrored slves of the above 3 pfses

dfly-bkpsrv# cd /Backup2
dfly-bkpsrv# ls -l
total 0
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  17 Jul  7  2009 Data -> /Backup2/pfs/Data
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  27 Sep 28  2009 VersionControl ->
/Backup2/pfs/VersionControl
drwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   0 Oct  8  2009 pfs
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  17 Oct  8  2009 test -> /Backup2/pfs/test

the snapshots are the same as of now for both masters and slaves

dfly-bkpsrv# hammer snapls /Backup1/Data/
Snapshots on /Backup1/Data      PFS #1
Transaction ID                   Timestamp                      Note
0x00000001b998acd0      2010-04-07 13:04:02 IST -
0x00000001bd9525b0      2010-04-08 20:30:06 IST -
0x00000001bf96f710        2010-04-09 20:30:07 IST -
dfly-bkpsrv# hammer snapls /Backup2/Data/
Snapshots on (null)     PFS #1
Transaction ID                   Timestamp                       Note
0x00000001b998acd0      2010-04-07 13:04:02 IST -
0x00000001bd9525b0      2010-04-08 20:30:06 IST -
0x00000001bf96f710        2010-04-09 20:30:07 IST -
dfly-bkpsrv#

dfly-bkpsrv# hammer snapls /Backup1/VersionControl/
Snapshots on /Backup1/VersionControl    PFS #2
Transaction ID                   Timestamp                       Note
0x00000001b99af1c0       2010-04-07 13:24:57 IST -
0x00000001bd952790      2010-04-08 20:56:40 IST -
0x00000001bf96f8d0        2010-04-09 20:56:48 IST -
dfly-bkpsrv# hammer snapls /Backup2/VersionControl/
Snapshots on (null)     PFS #2
Transaction ID                   Timestamp                       Note
0x00000001b99af1c0       2010-04-07 13:24:57 IST -
0x00000001bd952790      2010-04-08 20:56:40 IST -
0x00000001bf96f8d0        2010-04-09 20:56:48 IST -

Snapshots on /Backup1/test      PFS #3
Transaction ID                   Timestamp               Note
0x00000001c1982760      2010-04-12 14:27:30 IST -
dfly-bkpsrv# hammer snapls /Backup2/test/
Snapshots on (null)     PFS #3
Transaction ID                    Timestamp               Note
0x00000001bf980a60       2010-04-12 14:27:38 IST -


So why Backup2 70% filled while Backup1 is only 62% filled ?

Thanks :-)

--Siju

--
http://dfbsd.trackbsd.org.ar