Torrey McMahon tmcmah...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Richard Ellingrichard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
ufsdump is the problem, not ufsrestore. If you ufsdump an active
file system, there is no guarantee you can ufsrestore it. The only way
to guarantee
Why do you say fssnap has the same problem?
If it write locks the file system, it is only for a matter of seconds, as I
recall.
Years ago, I used it on a daily basis to do ufsdumps of large fs'es.
Mark
On Jan 30, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling
iirc, we would notify the user community that the FS'es were going to hang
briefly.
Locking the FS'es is the best way to quiesce it, when users are worldwide, imo.
Mark
On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
A matter of seconds is a long time for a running Oracle database. The
On 2011-Jan-28 21:37:50 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is
corrupt in the data stream, the whole stream is lost.
Regarding point #2, I contend that zfs send is better than
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Peter Jeremy
peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
On 2011-Jan-28 21:37:50 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is
corrupt in the data stream, the
On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Richard Ellingrichard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
ufsdump is the problem, not ufsrestore. If you ufsdump an active
file system, there is no guarantee you can ufsrestore it. The only way
to guarantee this is to keep the file system quiesced during the
From: Peter Jeremy [mailto:peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:48 PM
2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is
corrupt in the data stream, the whole stream is lost.
OTOH, it renders ZFS send useless for backup or archival purposes.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tristram Scott
When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no
official
replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore.
Let's go into that a little bit. If you're piping
On 01/28/11 02:37 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Let's go into that a little bit. If you're piping zfs send directly into
zfs receive, then it is an ideal backup method. But not everybody can
afford the disk necessary to do that, so people are tempted to zfs send
to
a file or tape. There are
On 28/01/2011 13:37, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tristram Scott
When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no
official
replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore.
Let's
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Tristram Scott wrote:
I don't disagree that zfs is the better choice, but...
Seriously though. UFS is dead. It has no advantage
over ZFS that I'm aware
of.
When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no official
replacement for the
I don't disagree that zfs is the better choice, but...
Seriously though. UFS is dead. It has no advantage
over ZFS that I'm aware
of.
When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no official
replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore. The discussion has been had
Hi,
I wonder what is the better option to install the system on solaris ufs
and zfs sensitive data on whether this is the best all on zfs?
What are the pros and cons of such a solution?
f...@ll
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Albert wrote:
I wonder what is the better option to install the system on solaris ufs and
zfs sensitive data on whether this is the best all on zfs?
What are the pros and cons of such a solution?
The best choice is usually to install with zfs root on a mirrored pair
of
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
The best choice is usually to install with zfs root on a mirrored pair
of disks. UFS is going away as a boot option.
UFS is already unavailable as a boot option. It's only
The only situation I can think of where UFS would be advantageous over
ZFS might be in a low memory situation. ZFS loves memory.
But to answer the original question, ZFS is where you want to be.
Jerry
On 12/08/10 20:56, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
16 matches
Mail list logo
