On Wed, March 17, 2010 06:28, Khyron wrote: > The Best Practices Guide is also very clear about send and receive > NOT being designed explicitly for backup purposes. I find it odd > that so many people seem to want to force this point. ZFS appears > to have been designed to allow the use of well known tools that are > available today to perform backups and restores. I'm not sure how > many people are actually using NFS v4 style ACLs, but those people > have the most to worry about when it comes to using tar or NetBackup > or Networker or Amanda or Bacula or star to backup ZFS file systems. > Everyone else, which appears to be the majority of people, have many > tools to choose from, tools they've used for a long time in various > environments on various platforms. The learning curve doesn't > appear to be as steep as most people seem to make it out to be. I > honestly think many people may be making this issue more complex > than it needs to be.
Anybody using the in-kernel CIFS is also concerned with the ACLs, and I think that's the big issue. Also, snapshots. For my purposes, I find snapshots at some level a very important part of the backup process. My old scheme was to rsync from primary ZFS pool to backup ZFS pool, and snapshot both pools (with somewhat different retention schedules). My new scheme, forced by the ACL issues, is to use ZFS send/receive (but I haven't been able to make it work yet), including snapshots. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
