Matthew Ahrens <Matthew.Ahrens <at> sun.com> writes: > > True, but presumably restoring the snapshots is a rare event.
You are right, this would only happen in case of disaster and total loss of the backup server. > I thought that your onsite and offsite pools were the same size? If so then > you should be able to fit the entire contents of the onsite pool in one of > the offsite ones. Well, I simplified the example. In reality, the offsite pool is slightly smaller due to different number of disks and sizes. > Also, if you can afford to waste some space, you could do something like: > > zfs send onsite <at> T-100 | ... > zfs send -i T-100 onsite <at> t-0 | ... > zfs send -i T-100 onsite <at> t-99 | ... > zfs send -i T-99 onsite <at> t-98 | ... > [...] Yes, I thought about it. I might do this if the delta between T-100 and T-0 is reasonable. Oh, and while I am thinking about it, beside "zfs send | gzip | gpg", and zfs-crypto, a 3rd option would be to use zfs on top of a loficc device (lofi compression & cryptography). I went to the project page, only to realize that they haven't shipped anything yet. Do you know how hard would it be to implement "zfs send -i A B" with B older than A ? Or why hasn't this been done in the first place ? I am just being curious here, I can't wait for this feature anyway (even though it would make my life soo much simpler). -marc _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
