Joerg Schilling wrote:
dick hoogendijk <d...@nagual.nl> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:05:15 -0400
Edward Ned Harvey <sola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
zfs send -Rv rp...@0908 > /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.0908
The recommended thing is to "zfs send | zfs receive"
I have a zpool named backup for this purpose (mirrored).
Do I create a seperate FS (backup/FS) into it or can I use your example
like: zfs send rp...@0908 | zfs receive -Fd bac...@0908
Unless this second pool is on a different physical location, this is not
a backup.
That depends what backup means in this particular environment and what
the risk model is. If fire, theft or other things that normally require
and offsite copy aren't part of this persons risk model then it may well
be a perfectly sufficient backup for them.
A real backup is able to survive a fire, theft or similar problems.
Not all "secondary/offline copies" of data need to survive those risks.
This particular case could be, for example: if "backup" is a pool made
from a disk (or set of disks) that are either physically removed or
otherwise protected from fire and/or theft then it is a backup by your
definition. The drives may get detached when the receive is finished
and put them into a firesafe. Or the site may be sufficiently
physically secure for the security threat model anyway.
You are making assumptions about the physical environment based on a
command being run.
Just like "star cf - | star xf -" isn't backup either then.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
