Chris Siebenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | My impression is that the "only" real problem with incrementals from
> | ufsdump or star is that you would like to have a database that tells
> | you in which incremental a specific file with a specific time stamp
> | may be found.
>
> In our situat
| My impression is that the "only" real problem with incrementals from
| ufsdump or star is that you would like to have a database that tells
| you in which incremental a specific file with a specific time stamp
| may be found.
In our situation here, this is done by the overall backup system
driv
David Magda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2008, at 06:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The other method works as root if you use -atime (see man page) and is
> > available since 13 years.
>
> Would it be possible to assign an RBAC role to a regular user to
> accomplish this? If so, w
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM, David Magda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2008, at 06:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> The other method works as root if you use -atime (see man page) and is
>> available since 13 years.
>
> Would it be possible to assign an RBAC role to a regular user to
On May 31, 2008, at 06:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The other method works as root if you use -atime (see man page) and is
> available since 13 years.
Would it be possible to assign an RBAC role to a regular user to
accomplish this? If so, would you know which one?
Historically backups ran as
"J.P. King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A cleanly written filesystem provides clean and abstract interfaces to do
> > anything you like with the filesystem, it's content and metadata. In such an
> > environment, there is no need for a utility that knows the disk layout (like
> > ufsdump does)
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious - is the current stream format tagged with a version number?
Richard Elling posted something about the send format on 5/14/2008:
> To date, the only incompatibility is with send streams created prior
> to Nev
On May 30, 2008, at 10:49, J.P. King wrote:
For _my_ purposes I'd be happy with zfs send/receive, if only it was
guaranteed to be compatible between versions.
How often are you going to be doing restores from these, and for how
long? Since the zfs send/receive stream format has only changed
> Is there a way to efficiently replicating a complete zfs-pool
> including all filesystems and snapshots?
zfs send -R
-R Generate a replication stream package,
which will replicate the specified
filesystem, and
> I'd like to take a backup of a live filesystem without modifying
> the last accessed time.
why not take a snapshot?
Rob
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discus
On 30 May 2008, at 15:49, J.P. King wrote:
> For _my_ purposes I'd be happy with zfs send/receive, if only it was
> guaranteed to be compatible between versions. I agree that the
> inability
> to extract single files is an irritation - I am not sure why this is
> anything more than an implement
> A cleanly written filesystem provides clean and abstract interfaces to do
> anything you like with the filesystem, it's content and metadata. In such an
> environment, there is no need for a utility that knows the disk layout (like
> ufsdump does).
I'd like to take a backup of a live filesystem
Chris Siebenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first issue alone makes 'zfs send' completely unsuitable for the
> purposes that we currently use ufsdump. I don't believe that we've lost
> a complete filesystem in years, but we restore accidentally deleted
> files all the time. (And snapshots a
Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> The closest equivalent to ufsdump and ufsrestore is "star".
> >> I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
> >> send'. 'zfs send' like ufs
Thomas Maier-Komor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
> > send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
> > actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
> > implementation.
> >
> > st
On 29 May 2008, at 17:52, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> The first issue alone makes 'zfs send' completely unsuitable for the
> purposes that we currently use ufsdump. I don't believe that we've
> lost
> a complete filesystem in years, but we restore accidentally deleted
> files all the time. (And sn
TECTED]:
> Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore
> To: Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>>>
>>
>&
Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> | I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
> | 'zfs send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the
> | the actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
> | implementation.
>
> I must strongly disagree in turn,
Jonathan Hogg wrote:
> On 29 May 2008, at 15:51, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
>
>
>>> I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
>>> 'zfs
>>> send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
>>> actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the file
| I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
| 'zfs send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the
| the actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
| implementation.
I must strongly disagree in turn, at least for Solaris 10. 'zfs send
On 29 May 2008, at 15:51, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
>> I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
>> 'zfs
>> send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
>> actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
>> implementation.
>>
>> s
Darren J Moffat schrieb:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> "Poulos, Joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
>>> ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> The closest equivalent to ufsdump and ufsrestore is "star".
>> I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
>> send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
>> actual on dis
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The closest equivalent to ufsdump and ufsrestore is "star".
>
> I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
> send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
> actual on disk layout and is an integrate
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Poulos, Joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
>>
>>
>>
>> Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
>> ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like to take advantage of
>> something
"Poulos, Joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
>
>
>
> Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
> ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like to take advantage of
> something like ufsdump rather than using ex
Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like to take advantage of
something like ufsdump rather than using expensive backup software.
Thanks for any suggestion
27 matches
Mail list logo
