Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs incremental send?

2011-03-28 Thread Jan.Dreyer
Hi, I really don't like cross-posts, so this answer only goes to zfs-discuss. A possible workaround: redirect the 'zfs send' to a local file and transfer this file by a mechanism that is able to do a resume (e.g. rsync). Gruß Jan Dreyer -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opens

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs incremental send?

2011-03-28 Thread Peter Jeremy
On 2011-Mar-29 02:19:30 +0800, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >Is it (or will it) be possible to do a partial/resumable zfs >send/receive? If having 30TB of data and only a gigabit link, such >transfers takes a while, and if interrupted, will require a >re-transmit of all the data. zfs send/receive

Re: [zfs-discuss] A resilver record?

2011-03-28 Thread Ian Collins
On 03/29/11 02:52 AM, Paul Kraus wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: When you have a backup server, which does nothing but zfs receive, that's probably your best case scenario. Because the data is as nonvolatile as possible. But indeed, because all the sends ar

[zfs-discuss] zfs incremental send?

2011-03-28 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
Hi all I have a few boxes with rather large amounts of data on ZFS, and so far, it's been working quite well. Now, one little problem is mentioned every now and then. Is it (or will it) be possible to do a partial/resumable zfs send/receive? If having 30TB of data and only a gigabit link, such

Re: [zfs-discuss] A resilver record?

2011-03-28 Thread Paul Kraus
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > When you have a backup server, which does nothing but zfs receive, that's > probably your best case scenario.  Because the data is as nonvolatile as > possible.  But indeed, because all the sends are incremental, fragmentation > will acc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any use for extra drives?

2011-03-28 Thread Anonymous Remailer (austria)
> Right, put some small (30GB or something trivial) disks in for root and > then make a nice fast multi-spindle pool for your data. If your 320s > are around the same performance as your 500s, you could stripe and > mirror them all into a big pool. ZFS will waste the extra 180 on the > bigge

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any use for extra drives?

2011-03-28 Thread Anonymous Remailer (austria)
> If you plan to generate a lot of data, why use the root pool? You can put > the /home and /proj filesystems (/export/...) on a separate pool, thus > off-loading the root pool. I don't, it's a development box with not alot happening. > > My two cents, thanks __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any use for extra drives?

2011-03-28 Thread Anonymous
Thanks Roy and everyone that answered. Sorry if the replies arrive out of order and late. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss