On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 16:23, Nick <nick.couch...@seakr.com> wrote: > > IMHO, snapshots are not a replacement for backups. Backups should > definitely reside outside the system, so that if you lose your entire array, > SAN, controller, etc., you can recover somewhere else. Snapshots, on the > other hand, give you the ability to quickly recover to a point in time when > something not-so-catastrophic happens - like a user deletes a file, an O/S > update fails and hoses your system, etc. - without going to a backup system. > Snapshots are nice, but they're no replacement for backups. >
I agree, and said so, in response to: > You seem to be confusing "snapshots" with "backup". > To which I replied: No, I wasn't confusing them at all. Backups are backups. Snapshots however, do have some limited value as backups. They're no substitute, but augment a planned backup schedule rather nicely in many situations. Please note, that I said that snapshots AUGMENT a well planned backup schedule, and in no way are they - nor should they be - considered a replacement. Your quoted scenario is the perfect illustration, a user-deleted file, a rollback for that update that "didn't quite work out as you hoped" and so forth. Agreed, no argument. The (one and only) point that I was making was that - like backups - snapshots should be kept "elsewhere" whether by using zfs-send, or zipping up the whole shebang and ssh'ing it someplace...."elsewhere" meaning beyond the pool. Rolling 15 minute and hourly snapshots....no, they stay local, but daily/weekly/monthly snapshots get stashed "offsite" (off-box). Apart from anything else, it's one heck of a spacesaver - in the long run.
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
