On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Richard Elling<richard.ell...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Cindy! > > Mike, et.al., > I think the confusion is surrounding replacing an enterprise backup > scheme with send-to-file. There is nothing wrong with send-to-file, > it functions as designed. But it isn't designed to be a full-featured > backup solution. IMHO, the title, "Archiving and Restoring Snapshots" > clearly shows their intent. > -- richard
In my world, "archiving" is something you do when you want to be sure that you can get back at it several years from now. The advice I have seen so far on this list is that the output of "zfs send" is not suitable for archival purposes. It doesn't matter if it is corporate financial data or family photos. For an enterprise backup situation, I actually find zfs send output much more palatable because backups are run very frequently on data that doesn't change that often. Tape rotation policies mean that I have multiple full backups and various levels of incrementals at my disposal. In an enterprise where I have change management procedures that allow me to understand what changed from week to week, going back to a prior full backup is not that big of a deal for anything except transactional data. But transactional data tends not to be suited for generic "back up the file system with tar" unless the transactions aren't very important. And yes - thank you Cindy. I tend to agree with the spirit of the docs, but I've also seen several conversations where storing "zfs send" output is highly discouraged. My intent of bringing this up was to head off the eventual situation where someone came to the list saying that they lost their data doing exactly what Sun told them to do. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
