zfs send/receive over network would require a little more work to set up (managing snapshots manually, netcat or ssh tunnel). In theory, yes, it would be better for data integrity (though I am unclear as to what it does if a transmission error does occur, since the communication isn't 2-way, just aborts?), and probably would be faster (though it would need to replicate almost from scratch to start, luckily there are a few common snapshots due to how the backup pool was originally populated).
Tim On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <r...@karlsbakk.net> wrote: >> It is a backup for our other NFS server (conducted nightly via rsync), > > ok - not the same thing - out of interest, why don't you just use zfs > send/receive? > > Vennlige hilsener / Best regards > > roy > -- > Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk > (+47) 98013356 > r...@karlsbakk.net > http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ > GPG Public key: http://karlsbakk.net/roysigurdkarlsbakk.pubkey.txt > -- > I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det > er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av > idiomer med xenotyp etymologi. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og > relevante synonymer på norsk. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
