From nobody Fri Nov 11 20:02:19 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N88l52vl0z4frmw for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 20:02:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw1-x1132.google.com (mail-yw1-x1132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4N88l43nLtz4J0M for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 20:02:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-yw1-x1132.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-3704852322fso53077377b3.8 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:02:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7pqxBKwTBI6APTQkWcsnzTCkRERpj4PG0ICAWP/56WI=; b=WTzh2qBdIlFe36W7VoWg9QEex9Ysd1LHesg21W8b36I2+0n/jDK2s1vNvvaDQkSYY6 vSvzFUtSy0NbPCDgATcxxNqC2hp7zwBPzG3E1svZb+PfUFOTMCMSZRyBekmGGUZ/6cv0 DhUbMkGRzwY5zmUXaz5zdLl812qezFs9qR5NnJeGJvxga0K5P7kvLb41XsFtJG+Vn35+ gpn5hvXeE3QRM3deNvvk6xqk9M3EP5pTGQ+OYrNqwTIz+qjrR+d3g4Vu4KNoERqgld0f uqmGEr/WH+rHOY4Lqqdo4OVc+A1r0G41ekxMXChDBKN87qGX/JX+s14AAPAmsRg4T2Hy 62Mg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=7pqxBKwTBI6APTQkWcsnzTCkRERpj4PG0ICAWP/56WI=; b=Z4HmmMZGraJ9SAc6hQ3bYGa3ec/TPDF3IkvitMdBXrPRQ+lsZdQktjq6bkRL+z2z5y njHl7B+m3WL/F8IYhG+drlyqakXnP5V+p04ajlLsQ/rbzBzlAhMcw2CscimXEKwaAX2i hEaa/L5wUM4w8j2EhqGe5Qj6yWqvE/+jzV8Nwh6KNjDisjr42uLjQiWmvd8dq4qUemqh rNNRqnT4o3iZ2tA5oloVKjqkKodZxGonC42pjRfoRr8Rj698fefJRF6CeVDe3Ndj55Y2 Ds1gH7H4tayhCQPkOHJUFzeYQqwQEd4aQ6cqcpofZjgQJInM4JYHJqxX0LKPYi1RdKRp 2WlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmeIiM8kcb6m52J7twr94sHJWaKpBCVEL2L5QQj+5O2iLKkVFel amuft2yY0rmCuT2704VykAk7M18dKpLwySEy3/N3+Nzu X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6k3nRVZMD8iwXufnmHeAF/picmHcrxU6z9OtRbPccWdPJSOFjo4w683+bZ+UbzbRiKvFp/kDDEx8De2I5Jx7M= X-Received: by 2002:a81:a52:0:b0:356:dca3:de35 with SMTP id 79-20020a810a52000000b00356dca3de35mr3359488ywk.12.1668196975685; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:02:55 -0800 (PST) List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 23:02:19 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Odd behaviour of two identical ZFS servers mirroring via rsync To: andy thomas Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000026b43905ed376002" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4N88l43nLtz4J0M X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --00000000000026b43905ed376002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" , Nov 11, 2022 at 8:42 PM andy thomas wrote: > I have two identical servers, called clustor2 and clustor-backup, each > with a ZFS RAIDZ-1 pool containing 9 SAS hard disks plus one spare and two > SSDs for the ZIL and ARC functions. clustor2 stores user data from a > HPC while clustor2-backup uses rsync to mirrors all the data from clustor2 > every 24 hours. > > However, the disk usage on the mirror server is considerably more than on > the other server - attached is a screenshot showing the two servers side > by side, with the mirror server on the right, and displaying the contents > of the same subdirectory choen at random (named 'ratio_10.0' in this > instance); as you can see, the sizes of the files within each of the > folders are identical but 'du' reports very different > space usages for each folder and 'zpool list' also reports a significant > difference in ZFS pool size. > > I'm not sure if this is relevant but both servers have ZFS pools with no > compression although lz4 compression is enabled on the ZFS filesystems & > both run FreeBSD 11.3 with ZFS version 5. > > Perhaps using zfs send/receive instead of rsync for mirroring might solve > this disparity? > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions, > > Andy Your question I am understanding the following points . I am using rsync in Fedora Linux . There are parameters of rsync such as --delete to delete files from the destination drive when they do not exist in the source drive . Please carefully scan rsync parameters and use suitable ones for your application . If a parameter like --delete is not used , rsync copies new files from the source drive and it does not delete any files from the destination drive . With my best wishes for all . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk --00000000000026b43905ed376002 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

, Nov 11= , 2022 at 8:42 PM andy thomas <andy@time-domain.co.uk> wrote:
I have two identical servers, call= ed clustor2 and clustor-backup, each
with a ZFS RAIDZ-1 pool containing 9 SAS hard disks plus one spare and two =
SSDs for the ZIL and ARC functions. clustor2 stores user data from a
HPC while clustor2-backup uses rsync to mirrors all the data from clustor2 =
every 24 hours.

However, the disk usage on the mirror server is considerably more than on <= br> the other server - attached is a screenshot showing the two servers side by side, with the mirror server on the right, and displaying the contents <= br> of the same subdirectory choen at random (named 'ratio_10.0' in thi= s
instance); as you can see, the sizes of the files within each of the
folders are identical but 'du' reports very different
space usages for each folder and 'zpool list' also reports a signif= icant
difference in ZFS pool size.

I'm not sure if this is relevant but both servers have ZFS pools with n= o
compression although lz4 compression is enabled on the ZFS filesystems &= ;
both run FreeBSD 11.3 with ZFS version 5.

Perhaps using zfs send/receive instead of rsync for mirroring might solve <= br> this disparity?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions,

Andy



Your question I am understanding the following points .



I am using=C2=A0 rsync=C2=A0 in = Fedora Linux .

There are=C2=A0 parameter= s of=C2=A0 rsync=C2=A0 such as

=C2=A0--delete

to delet= e files from the destination drive when they do not exist in the source dri= ve .


Please carefull= y scan=C2=A0 rsync=C2=A0 parameters and use suitable ones for your applicat= ion .


If=C2=A0 a par= ameter like=C2=A0 --delete=C2=A0 is not used , rsync=C2=A0 copies new files= from the source drive and
it does not delete any files from= the destination drive .


With my best wishes for all .


<= /div>
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk






=C2=A0
--00000000000026b43905ed376002--