On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 04:32:18PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: > 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.
Why do you think that you'd need bigger pipes to backup to disk than to tape? Same source, same amount of data, and same backup time window, same bandwidth requirement. Unless backup to disk allows for much higher bandwidths than backup to tape (but I don't believe that), but then you only need larger pipes if you'd wanted to take advantage of that. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
