Re: [rdiff-backup-users] sshfs: workaround and test results

[Andrew Ferguson]

Andreas Olsson wrote:
> Luckily there is a workaround in sshfs you can apply (-o workaround=rename)
> 
> Perhaps that sshfs-workaround should be mentioned in rdiff-backup's 
> documentation? Myself I plan to write a page on sshfs in the wiki, but as for 
> the official documentation, that is for someone else to decide.


Great! Thanks for finding that workaround option. It turns out that the
-o workaround=rename option is enabled by default in the MacOSX version
of sshfs, which is why I didn't not run into the issue.

I have added a note about it the official FAQ, as well as a link to the
Wiki entry.

> Obviously sshfs couldn't create hard links. They were instead stored as 
> separate files. Perhaps information on hard links could be saved as metadata 
> and then the hard links would be recreated on a restore?

To my knowledge, they are stored in the metadata as hard links, and are
recreated as such during the restore.

> I also took the opportunity to do some performance test comparing running 
> rdiff-backup against an sshfs-mount and running rdiff-backup the "normal" way 
> through an ssh-tunnel. In those cases which primarily involves transferring 
> files, such as an initial backup or a restore, it always took conciderable 
> longer time when sshfs was involved, no matter the amount of files, the speed 
> of the link, etc. When doing an incremental backup, in other words mostly 
> comparing files, updating metadata and transferring a few files, the results 
> vary depending on the changes in question, the speed of the link, etc.

Excellent. Do you think you can add the performance testing notes to the
Wiki entry?

Thanks,
Andrew

-- 
Andrew Ferguson - address@hidden