On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:38:03PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Daniel Carosone wrote: >> >> .. as long as you scrub both the original pool and the backup pool >> with the same regularity. sending the full backup from the source is >> basically the same as a scrub of the source. > > This is not quite true. The send only reads/verifies as much as it > needs to send the data. It won't read a redundant copy if it does not > have to. It won't traverse metadata that it does not have to. A scrub > reads/verifies all data and metadata.
Sure, but I was comparing to not doing scrubs at all, since the more dangerous interpretation is that always-incremental sends are fully equivalent to the OP's method. I was pointing out the lack of a scrub-like side-effect in that method. I shouldn't have glossed over the differences with "basically". If one was not doing scrubs, and switched from sending full streams monthly to continuous replication streams, old data might go unread and unreadable over time. We all agree scrubs and incrementals are the way to go, but don't do either alone. -- Dan.
pgpVvrbsd1m23.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
