Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you interested only in full backups and in the ability to restore
> > single
> > files from that type of backups?
> >
> > Or are you interested in incremental backups that _also_ allow you to
> > reduce the
> > daily backup size but still gives you
On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Hi Rich, I asked you a question that you did not yet answer:
>
> Hi Jörg,
>
>> Are you interested only in full backups and in the ability to
>> restore single
>> files from that type of backups?
>>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Hi Rich, I asked you a question that you did not yet answer:
Hi Jörg,
> Are you interested only in full backups and in the ability to restore single
> files from that type of backups?
>
> Or are you interested in incremental backups that _also_ all
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZFS discuss is fine but the thread has gone into non ZFS related and is
> generic backup stuff. If there are ZFS specifics - like the question
> about extended attributes then I think this is a reasonable place to
> discuss. Discussion about nomenc
michael schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich never said so. He said "the ability to do incremental backups and
> restore arbitrary files from an archive are two different things." You were
> addressing an issue he never brought up.
I really don't understand why you did not answer my quest
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People who like to backup usually also like to do incremental backups.
> > Why don't you?
>
> I do like incremental backups. But the ability to do incremental backups
> and restore arbitrary files from an archive are two different things. An
> incremental
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> michael schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
> Why do you believe that an incremental backup disallows to extract single
> files
Rich never said so. He said "the ability to do incre
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > michael schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why do you believe that an incremental backup disallows to extract single
> >>> files
> >> Rich never said so. He said "the ability to do incremental backups and
> >> re
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we take further discussion of star to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> please unless it really has something to do with ZFS.
Do you have a problem with a backup related discussion related to ZFS?
The original question from the OP was ZFS related and it has no
Tatjana S Heuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote
>
> > Now suppose that I accidentally delete a couple of those files; it is very
> > desirable to be able to restore just a certain named subset of the files
> > in an archive rather than having to restore the whole archive. I'm looki
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> michael schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Why do you believe that an incremental backup disallows to extract single
>>> files
>> Rich never said so. He said "the ability to do incremental backups and
>> restore arbitrary files from an archive are two different th
michael schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why do you believe that an incremental backup disallows to extract single
> > files
>
> Rich never said so. He said "the ability to do incremental backups and
> restore arbitrary files from an archive are two different things." You were
> addressi
Can we take further discussion of star to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
please unless it really has something to do with ZFS.
Thanks.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu
Rich Teer wrote
> Now suppose that I accidentally delete a couple of those files; it is very
> desirable to be able to restore just a certain named subset of the files
> in an archive rather than having to restore the whole archive. I'm looking
> for a tool that can do that.
Now if Joerg wasn't
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> People who like to backup usually also like to do incremental backups.
>>> Why don't you?
>> I do like incremental backups. But the ability to do incremental backups
>> and restore arbitrary files from an archive are two differen
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People who like to backup usually also like to do incremental backups.
> > Why don't you?
>
> I do like incremental backups. But the ability to do incremental backups
> and restore arbitrary files from an archive are two different things. An
> incremental
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, michael schuster wrote:
> that's been in tar since I can remember; from the man-page of tar(1):
>
> x
>
> Extract or restore. The named files are extracted from
> the tarfile and written to the directory specified in
> the tarfile, relativ
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Incremental backups aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about
> > the ability to retrieve one or more distinct files from an archive,
> > without having to restore the whole archive, like one can do with
> > ufsrestore.
>
> The OP was intere
Rich Teer wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Star is the only portable and non fs-dependent archiver that supports
>> incremental dumps, so I see no cometition
>
> Incremental backups aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about
> the ability to retrieve one or mo
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Star is the only portable and non fs-dependent archiver that supports
> > incremental dumps, so I see no cometition
>
> Incremental backups aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about
> the ability
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Star is the only portable and non fs-dependent archiver that supports
> incremental dumps, so I see no cometition
Incremental backups aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about
the ability to retrieve one or more distinct files from an arc
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cool. Can one selectively restore files from an archive created by
> Star? For example, if I archive everything under /home/rich, can I
> just restore /home/rich/some/random/file? What about with Star's
> competitors, tar, gtar, pax, and cpio? (I guess I
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Star typically needs 1/4 .. 1/3 of the CPU time needed by GNU tar ans it
> > uses two processes to do the work in parallel. If you found a case where
> > star is not faster than GNU tar andwhere the sp
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I re-ran my little test today and do see that 'star' does produce
> somewhat reduced overall run time but does not consume less CPU than
> GNU tar. This is just a test of the time to archive the files in my
> home directory. My home directory is i
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> Star typically needs 1/4 .. 1/3 of the CPU time needed by GNU tar ans it
> uses two processes to do the work in parallel. If you found a case where
> star is not faster than GNU tar andwhere the speed is not limited by the
> filesystem or the I/O devi
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > where it decided to remove the GNU tar I had installed there. Star
> > does not support traditional tar command line syntax so it can't be
> > used with existing scripts. Performance testing showed that
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On advice of Joerg Schilling and not knowing what 'star' was, I
> decided to install it for testing. Star uses a very unorthodox build
> and install approach so the person building it has very little control
> over what it does.
This is of course w
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> where it decided to remove the GNU tar I had installed there. Star
> does not support traditional tar command line syntax so it can't be
> used with existing scripts. Performance testing showed that it was no
> more efficient than the 'gtar' which com
On advice of Joerg Schilling and not knowing what 'star' was, I
decided to install it for testing. Star uses a very unorthodox build
and install approach so the person building it has very little control
over what it does.
Unfortunately I made the mistake of installing it under /usr/local
whe
Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nicholas Brealey wrote:
> > Jörg Schilling wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If you like to still do incremental backups, I
> >> recommend star.
> >>
> >> Jörg
> >>
> >
> > Can star backup and restore ZFS ACLs and extended attributes?
> >
> >
> Including the
Nicholas Brealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jörg Schilling wrote:
>
> >
> > If you like to still do incremental backups, I
> > recommend star.
> >
> > Jörg
>
> Can star backup and restore ZFS ACLs and extended attributes?
If star did appear in Solaris before (see PSARC 480/2004), it most like
Nicholas Brealey wrote:
> Jörg Schilling wrote:
>
>
>> If you like to still do incremental backups, I
>> recommend star.
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>
> Can star backup and restore ZFS ACLs and extended attributes?
>
>
Including the new Windows ones that the CIFS server attaches??
-Kyle
> Nick
>
Jörg Schilling wrote:
>
> If you like to still do incremental backups, I
> recommend star.
>
> Jörg
Can star backup and restore ZFS ACLs and extended attributes?
Nick
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discu
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:00 +, Gavin Maltby wrote:
> On 02/21/08 16:31, Rich Teer wrote:
>
> > What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools,
> > preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to
> > individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is require
> For home use I am making very successful use of zfs incremental send
> and receive. A script decides which filesystems to backup (based
> on a user property retrieved by zfs get) and snapshots the filesystem;
> it then looks for the last snapshot that the pool I'm backing
> up and the pool I'm b
On 02/21/08 16:31, Rich Teer wrote:
What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools,
preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to
individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required?
For home use I am making very successful use of zfs incremental
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools,
> preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to
> individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required?
If you like to still do incremental backups, I r
Hi all,
What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools,
preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to
individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required?
TIA,
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
URLs: http:
38 matches
Mail list logo
