| My impression is that the only real problem with incrementals from
| ufsdump or star is that you would like to have a database that tells
| you in which incremental a specific file with a specific time stamp
| may be found.
In our situation here, this is done by the overall backup system
Chris Siebenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| My impression is that the only real problem with incrementals from
| ufsdump or star is that you would like to have a database that tells
| you in which incremental a specific file with a specific time stamp
| may be found.
In our situation here,
J.P. King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A cleanly written filesystem provides clean and abstract interfaces to do
anything you like with the filesystem, it's content and metadata. In such an
environment, there is no need for a utility that knows the disk layout (like
ufsdump does).
I'd like
On May 31, 2008, at 06:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The other method works as root if you use -atime (see man page) and is
available since 13 years.
Would it be possible to assign an RBAC role to a regular user to
accomplish this? If so, would you know which one?
Historically backups ran as
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2008, at 06:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The other method works as root if you use -atime (see man page) and is
available since 13 years.
Would it be possible to assign an RBAC role to a regular user to
David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2008, at 06:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The other method works as root if you use -atime (see man page) and is
available since 13 years.
Would it be possible to assign an RBAC role to a regular user to
accomplish this? If so, would you
Thomas Maier-Komor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
implementation.
star is a
Chris Siebenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first issue alone makes 'zfs send' completely unsuitable for the
purposes that we currently use ufsdump. I don't believe that we've lost
a complete filesystem in years, but we restore accidentally deleted
files all the time. (And snapshots are
A cleanly written filesystem provides clean and abstract interfaces to do
anything you like with the filesystem, it's content and metadata. In such an
environment, there is no need for a utility that knows the disk layout (like
ufsdump does).
I'd like to take a backup of a live filesystem
On 30 May 2008, at 15:49, J.P. King wrote:
For _my_ purposes I'd be happy with zfs send/receive, if only it was
guaranteed to be compatible between versions. I agree that the
inability
to extract single files is an irritation - I am not sure why this is
anything more than an
I'd like to take a backup of a live filesystem without modifying
the last accessed time.
why not take a snapshot?
Rob
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Is there a way to efficiently replicating a complete zfs-pool
including all filesystems and snapshots?
zfs send -R
-R Generate a replication stream package,
which will replicate the specified
filesystem, and
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious - is the current stream format tagged with a version number?
Richard Elling posted something about the send format on 5/14/2008:
To date, the only incompatibility is with send streams created prior
to Nevada
Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like to take advantage of
something like ufsdump rather than using expensive backup software.
Thanks for any
Poulos, Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like to take advantage of
something like ufsdump rather than using expensive
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Poulos, Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like to take advantage of
something like ufsdump
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The closest equivalent to ufsdump and ufsrestore is star.
I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The closest equivalent to ufsdump and ufsrestore is star.
I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
actual on disk layout and
Darren J Moffat schrieb:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Poulos, Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a ZFS equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore?
Will creating a tar file work with ZFS? We are trying to backup a
ZFS file system to a separate disk, and would like to take advantage of
On 29 May 2008, at 15:51, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
'zfs
send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
implementation.
star is a
| I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
| 'zfs send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the
| the actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
| implementation.
I must strongly disagree in turn, at least for Solaris 10. 'zfs
] zfs equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore
To: Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
'zfs
send'. 'zfs
On 29 May 2008, at 17:52, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
The first issue alone makes 'zfs send' completely unsuitable for the
purposes that we currently use ufsdump. I don't believe that we've
lost
a complete filesystem in years, but we restore accidentally deleted
files all the time. (And
23 matches
Mail list logo
