On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <solar...@nedharvey.com> wrote: >> I think what you're saying is: Why bother trying to backup with "zfs >> send" >> when the recommended practice, fully supportable, is to use other tools >> for >> backup, such as tar, star, Amanda, bacula, etc. Right? >> >> The answer to this is very simple. >> #1 ... >> #2 ... > > Oh, one more thing. "zfs send" is only discouraged if you plan to store the > data stream and do "zfs receive" at a later date. > > If instead, you are doing "zfs send | zfs receive" onto removable media, or > another server, where the data is immediately fed through "zfs receive" then > it's an entirely viable backup technique.
Richard Elling made an interesting observation that suggests that storing a zfs send data stream on tape is a quite reasonable thing to do. Richard's background makes me trust his analysis of this much more than I trust the typical person that says that zfs send output is poison. http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=465973&tstart=0#465861 I think that a similar argument could be made for storing the zfs send data streams on a zfs file system. However, it is not clear why you would do this instead of just zfs send | zfs receive. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
