zipped vs unzipped backups

[Vladimir]

I'm looking at the new 6* backup options and I have some questions for those that have tried the new mode. When we upgraded to 6.0.4 we changed the backup schedule to behave in non-zip mode.

1) It is my understanding that the zipped backups are quicker. Are they quicker when you use compression as well?
2) How do compressed backups compare to the shared hardlink ones when it comes to disk space usage (excluding the transition period which I'm betting will stink)
3) How much slower are restores when you use compressed backups?

Thanx.

[ewilen]

For me, zipped backups weren't quicker at all. E.g., if I performed consecutive full backups...

1st zipped took about 1h10m, 2nd took about 1h10m.
1st noZipped took about 1h10m, 2nd took about 10m.

I didn't even bother trying compression, which should slow things down even more. I'd also be very surprised if they turned out to be anywhere close to as space-efficient as the shared-hardlink ones.

All this may be different if your users store very little data on the server and/or have high data turnover. Mine probably each have (on average) half a Gig of data on the server at any given time, with relatively little turnover.

[Rich Graves]

--noZip wins if /opt/zimbra/backup is a NFS mount, or if you backup /opt/zimbra/backup to tape.

IMO, both are silly things to do, and the default should not have changed.