I thinks that's legitimate so long as you don't change ZFS versions. Personally, I'm more comfortable doing a 'zfs send | zfs recv' than I am storing the send stream itself. The problem I have with the stream is that I may not be able to receive it in a future version of ZFS, while I'm pretty sure that I can upgrade an actual pool/fs pretty easily.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:48 PM, David Abrahams <d...@boostpro.com> wrote: > > on Wed Feb 18 2009, Frank Cusack <fcusack-AT-fcusack.com> wrote: > >> On February 17, 2009 3:57:34 PM -0800 Joe S <js.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM, David Magda <dma...@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote: >>>> If you want to do back ups of your file system use a documented utility >>>> (tar, cpio, pax, zip, etc.). >>> >>> I'm going to try to use Amanda and backup my data (not snapshots). >> >> You missed the point, which is not to avoid snapshots, but to avoid >> saving the stream as a backup. Backing up a snapshot is typically >> preferred to backing up a "live" filesystem. > > Has anyone here noticed that > http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide > suggests in several places that zfs send streams be stored for backup? > > -- > Dave Abrahams > BoostPro Computing > http://www.boostpro.com > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
