These are valid points, my point was it is an option. Another comment made it sound like that you needed zfs on both ends to use zfs send.
It is a valid option as part of an overall backup strategy. For instance local snapshots on another system, which can be streamed off site to S3 as an example. On 14 Jan 2016 6:56 a.m., "Chris Ridd" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2016, at 02:19, Nicholas Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 14 January 2016 at 11:01, Steven Williamson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just to point out to use zfs send your NAS does not need to support zfs. > ZFS send just outputs a stream of data to stdout. This can be directed to a > file on an NFS mount for example. And then ZFS recv on another host when > the time comes to restore. > > > > > > > > One advantage of receiving the stream in a zfs filesystem is error > checking the backup before you need it. Also means you backup subsystem is > unlikely to suffer from bit-rot. > > That’s an important point. If you ‘zfs send’ to a file, there’s *no > redundancy* in that file. If a bit flips in there, you’re toast. > > Chris > ------------------------------------------- smartos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
