[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# zfs list -r export/zone/www/html
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
export/zone/www/html 20.9M 225G 10.4M /export/zone/www/html
export/zone/www/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10.4M - 10.4M -
export/zone/www/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0 - 10.4M -
Frank Cusack wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# zfs send -i export/zone/www/[EMAIL PROTECTED] export/zone/www/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| ssh cookies zfs recv export/zone/www/html
cannot receive: destination has been modified since most recent snapshot --
use 'zfs rollback' to discard changes
I was going
On October 6, 2006 2:34:36 PM -0700 Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# zfs send -i export/zone/www/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
export/zone/www/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| ssh cookies zfs recv export/zone/www/html
cannot receive: destination has been modified since
Frank Cusack wrote:
If you can't run build 48 or later, then you can workaround the problem
by not mounting the filesystem in between the 'rollback' and the 'recv':
cookies# zfs set mountpoint=none export/zone/www/html
cookies# zfs rollback export/zone/www/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
milk# zfs send -i @4
On October 6, 2006 3:09:09 PM -0700 Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
If you can't run build 48 or later, then you can workaround the problem
by not mounting the filesystem in between the 'rollback' and the 'recv':
cookies# zfs set mountpoint=none export/zone/www/html
Frank Cusack wrote:
No, I just tried the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] incremental again. I didn't think to
try
another incremental. So I was basically doing the mountpoint=none trick,
they trying @[EMAIL PROTECTED] again without doing mountpoint=none.
Again, seeing the exact sequence of commands you
On October 6, 2006 3:42:48 PM -0700 Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
No, I just tried the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] incremental again. I didn't think to
try
another incremental. So I was basically doing the mountpoint=none trick,
they trying @[EMAIL PROTECTED] again
Frank Cusack wrote:
Really? I find it hard to believe that mountpoint=none causes any more
problems than 'zfs recv' by itself, since 'zfs recv' of an incremental
stream always unmounts the destination fs while the recv is taking place.
You're right. I forgot I was having problems with this
