On 4/18/07, J.P. King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we discuss this with a few objectives ? Like define "backup" and > then describe mechanisms that may achieve one? Or a really big > question that I guess I have to ask, do we even care anymore? </lurk> Personally I think you would benefit from some slightly different terms. I would differentiate between backups and archives. Here I am trying to move away from tape based backups. We do backups to a disk based system. There is no technical reason why this couldn't be done with zfs send | zfs receive.
Okay .. that is disk to disk or system to system. I can only assume that you have large pipes of bandwidth ( 10 GE ) to move data around with.
Then there are archives. I am exceptionally fortunate that my group don't really have to deal with these. If I did then, despite the significant drop in price for hard drive based storage, I'd still go for a tape based system. I don't know of anyway to do this usefully under zfs.
me neither. I just finished installing Solaris 10 and ZFS at a manufacturing site that needs fast cheap storage. Its real tough to argue with ZFS once you see it in action. They were sold and I went ahead with a few terabytes of storage attached to a Sun UltraSparc server. Everyone is happy until the question came up about "how to back it up?" This is where a netbackup solution is being used. A Netbackup machine mounts the various ZFS filesystems via NFS and then dumps to tape. Nightly.
I don't believe that there are any good/useful solutions which are free that will store both the data and all the potential meta-data in the filesystem in a recoverable way.
I think that star ( Joerg Schilling ) has a good grasp on all the metadata. Or do you mean the underlying structure that allows you to restore to bare metal or bare disks ? Dennis _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
