sean walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We mostly rely on AMANDA, but for a simple, compressed, encrypted,
> tape-spanning alternative backup (intended for disaster recovery) we use:
>
> tar cf - | lzf (quick compression utility) | ssl (to encrypt) |
> mbuffer (which writes to tape and looks
We mostly rely on AMANDA, but for a simple, compressed, encrypted,
tape-spanning alternative backup (intended for disaster recovery) we use:
tar cf - | lzf (quick compression utility) | ssl (to encrypt) | mbuffer
(which writes to tape and looks after tape changes)
Recovery is exactly the oppos
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:46:30AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> >>I'm don't have visibility of the Explorer development sites at the
> >>moment, but I believe that the last publicly available Explorer I
> >>looked at (v5.4) still didn't gather any ZFS related info, which would
> >>scare me mig
Timing is everything :-)
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-6612
-- richard
Richard Elling wrote:
Craig Morgan wrote:
Spare a thought also for the remote serviceability aspects of these
systems, if customers raise calls/escalations against such systems
then our remote support/solution cent
Richard Elling wrote:
Craig Morgan wrote:
Spare a thought also for the remote serviceability aspects of these
systems, if customers raise calls/escalations against such systems
then our remote support/solution centre staff would find such an
output useful in identifying and verifying the confi
Craig Morgan wrote:
Spare a thought also for the remote serviceability aspects of these
systems, if customers raise calls/escalations against such systems then
our remote support/solution centre staff would find such an output
useful in identifying and verifying the config.
I'm don't have vis
Spare a thought also for the remote serviceability aspects of these
systems, if customers raise calls/escalations against such systems
then our remote support/solution centre staff would find such an
output useful in identifying and verifying the config.
I'm don't have visibility of the Exp
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:38PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote:
> Add an option to zpool(1M) to dump the pool config as well as the
> configuration of the volumes within it to an XML file. This file
> could then be "sucked in" to zpool at a later date to recreate/
> replicate the pool and its volu
On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Ok, so I only managed data centers for 10 years. I can count on 2
fingers
the times this was useful to me. It is becoming less useful over time
unless your recovery disk is exactly identical to the lost disk. This
may sound easy, but it isn'
Dale Ghent wrote:
See, you're talking with a person who saves prtvtoc output of all his
disks so that if a disk dies, all I need to do to recreate the dead
disk's exact slice layout on the replacement drive is to run that saved
output through fmthard. One second on the command line rather than
Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll call your bluff. Is a zpool create any different for backup
> than the original creation? Neither ufsdump nor tar-like programs
> do a mkfs or tunefs. In those cases, the sys admin still has to
> create the file system using whatever volume manag
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> # mt -f /dev/rmt/0cbn status
> >> HP DAT-72 tape drive:
> >>sense key(0x0)= No Additional Sense residual= 0 retries= 0
> >>file no= 0 block no= 0
> >> # zfs send zfs0/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > /dev/rmt/0cbn
> >> cannot write stream: I/O error
Tim Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have a look at star
> >
> > Star supports true incremental backups.
>
> I think ZFS send/receive does this too: you can generate incremental
> backup streams between snapshots.
>
> I guess all that's missing is the tape control.
I don't believe that
> Having this feature seems like a no-brainer to me. Who cares if SVM/
> UFS/whatever didn't have it. ZFS is different from those. This is
> another area where ZFS could thumb its nose at those relative
> dinosaurs, feature-wise, and I argue that this is an important
> feature to have.
Yep,
On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
I'll call your bluff. Is a zpool create any different for backup
than the original creation? Neither ufsdump nor tar-like programs
do a mkfs or tunefs. In those cases, the sys admin still has to
create the file system using whatever volume ma
Dale Ghent wrote:
ZFS we all know is just more than a dumb fs like UFS is. As mentioned,
it has metadata in the form of volume options and whatnot. So, sure, I
can still use my Legato/NetBackup/Amanda and friends to back that data
up... but if the worst were to happen and I find myself having t
> "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
>> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
> ...
>> # mt -f /dev/rmt/0cbn status
>> HP DAT-72 tape drive:
>>sense key(0x0)= No Additional Sen
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Justin Stringfellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability
>> to do things like the clever incremental backups that ZFS c
Mike said:
> 3) ZFS ability to recognize duplicate blocks and store only one copy.
> I'm not sure the best way to do this, but my thought was to have ZFS
> remember what the checksums of every block are. As new blocks are
> written, the checksum of the new block is compared to known checksums.
>
Justin Stringfellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
> > tar as the means by which you do a backup?
>
> Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things
> like the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve tho
Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
> within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
> program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
> that amanda and other tools were what people used these
> days (in corporate accou
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
...
> # mt -f /dev/rmt/0cbn status
> HP DAT-72 tape drive:
>sense key(0x0)= No Additional Sense residua
On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Bill Moore wrote:
That said, we actually did talk to a lot of customers during the
development of ZFS. The overwhelming majority of them had a backup
scheme that did not involve ufsdump. I know there are folks that live
and die by ufsdump, but most customers have ot
> Hi,
>
>> Note though that neither of them will backup the ZFS properties, but
>> even zfs send/recv doesn't do that either.
>
> From a previous post, i remember someone saying that was being added,
> or at least being suggested.
Perhaps Solaris 10 Update 4 and snv_b54 or similar time frame.
_
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> (2.2) Use Samba to share out the whole filesystem tree and then
>> backup with Veritas NetBackup on a Microsoft Windows server.
>
> If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the native Solaris
> client ?
I don't have it here at home and i
>
>> Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
>> tar as the means by which you do a backup?
>
> Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things
> like the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve though; e.g. only
> backing the few blocks that have
> To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
> within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
> program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
> that amanda and other tools were what people used these
> days (in corporate accounts) and therefore zfsdump and
> zfsres
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:15:19PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> A very good suggestion.
>>
>> However ... there had to be a "however" eh?
>>
>> I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
>> everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature.
>> T
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
>> everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature.
>> The
>> ufsbackup and ufsrestore command will both do a complete dump of a UFS
>> filesystem plus incrementals and all the meta
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:20:50AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
>
> ...
>
> Of course it took a number of hours for that I/O error to appear because the
> t
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:15:19PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> A very good suggestion.
>
> However ... there had to be a "however" eh?
>
> I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
> everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature. The
> ufsb
Dennis Clarke wrote:
I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature. The
ufsbackup and ufsrestore command will both do a complete dump of a UFS
filesystem plus incrementals and all the metadata also.
Re
> On 7/7/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok.. not exactly a ZFS native solution but...
>
>>
>> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
>> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
>>
> snip
>
>>
>> (2) perhaps I can use f
> If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the
> native Solaris client ?
I don't suppose anyone knows if Networker will become zfs-aware at any
point?
e.g.
backing up properties
backing up an entire pool as a single save set
efficient incrementals (something similar to "zfs s
On 7/7/06, Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
that amanda and other tools were what people used these
days (in corporate acc
Hi,
Note though that neither of them will backup the ZFS properties, but
even zfs send/recv doesn't do that either.
From a previous post, i remember someone saying that was being added,
or at least being suggested.
Patrick
___
zfs-discuss mailing
Dennis Clarke wrote:
(2.2) Use Samba to share out the whole filesystem tree and then
backup with Veritas NetBackup on a Microsoft Windows server.
If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the native Solaris
client ?
Or use Legato Networker which is what is used
> Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
> tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things like
the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve though; e.g. only backing
the few blocks that have changed i
To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
that amanda and other tools were what people used these
days (in corporate accounts) and therefore zfsdump and
zfsrestore wasn't
On 7/7/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok.. not exactly a ZFS native solution but...
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
snip
(2) perhaps I can use find and tar or cpio t
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
Here is what I just tried :
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
zfs0 100G 65.8G 27.5K /export/zfs
zfs0/bac
41 matches
Mail list logo
