> If you like to have a backup that allows to access files, you need a file
> based
> backup and I am sure that even a filesystem level scan for recently changed
> files will not be much faster than what you may achive with e.g. star.
>
> Note that ufsdump directly accesees the raw disk device and thus _is_ at
> filesystem leven but still is slower than star on UFS.
While I am sure that star is technically a fine utility, the problem is that it
is effectively an unsupported product.
If our customers find a bug in their backup that is caused by a failure in a
Sun supplied utility, then they have a legal course of action. The customer's
system administrators are covered because they were using tools provided by the
vendor. The wrath of the customer would be upon Sun, not the supplier (us) or
the supplier's technical lead (me).
If the system administrator has chosen star (or if the supplier recommends
star), then the conversation becomes a lot more awkward. From the perspective
of the business, the system administrator will have acted irresponsibly by
choosing a tool that has no vendor support. Alternatively, the supplier will be
held responsible for recommending a product that has broken the customer's
ability to restore, and with no legal recourse, I wouldn't dare touch it. Sorry.
This is why Sun need to provide the solution themselves (or adopt and provide
support for star or similar third party products).
JR
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
