On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:48:57PM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> But I see how it could indeed be useful in
> theory to send just a *little* extra if you weren't sure quite what was
> needed but could guess pretty closely.
I think it's mostly for the benefit of retrying the same command,
On 2/10/2010 7:21 PM, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:36:10PM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
That's all about *ME* picking the suitable base snapshot, as I understand
it.
Correct.
I understood the recent reference to be suggesting that I didn't have
to, that z
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:36:10PM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> That's all about *ME* picking the suitable base snapshot, as I understand
> it.
Correct.
> I understood the recent reference to be suggesting that I didn't have
> to, that zfs would figure it out for me. Which still appears to
On Wed, February 10, 2010 16:51, Tim Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, February 10, 2010 16:15, Tim Cook wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Terry Hull wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for the info.
>> >>
>> >> If that last common snapshot g
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> On Wed, February 10, 2010 16:15, Tim Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Terry Hull wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the info.
> >>
> >> If that last common snapshot gets destroyed on the primary server, it is
> >> then a full
On Wed, February 10, 2010 16:15, Tim Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Terry Hull wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info.
>>
>> If that last common snapshot gets destroyed on the primary server, it is
>> then a full replication back to the primary server. Is that correct?
>>
>> --
>> Terry
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Terry Hull wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> If that last common snapshot gets destroyed on the primary server, it is
> then a full replication back to the primary server. Is that correct?
>
> --
> Terry
>
>
I think a better way of stating it is that it picks th
On Feb 10, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Terry Hull wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> If that last common snapshot gets destroyed on the primary server, it is then
> a full replication back to the primary server. Is that correct?
If there are no common snapshots, then the first question is "how did we
Thanks for the info.
If that last common snapshot gets destroyed on the primary server, it is then a
full replication back to the primary server. Is that correct?
--
Terry
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zf
On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Terry Hull wrote:
> First of all, I must apologize. I'm an OpenSolaris newbie so please don't
> be too hard on me.
[phasers on stun]
> Sorry if this has been beaten to death before, but I could not find it, so
> here goes. I'm wanting to be able to have two d
First of all, I must apologize. I'm an OpenSolaris newbie so please don't be
too hard on me.
Sorry if this has been beaten to death before, but I could not find it, so here
goes. I'm wanting to be able to have two disk servers that I replicate data
between using send / receive with snapsho
11 matches
Mail list logo
