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 whole stream is lost. >> >>Regarding point #2, I contend that zfs send is better than ufsdump. I would >>prefer to discover corruption in the backup, rather than blindly restoring >>it undetected. > > OTOH, it renders ZFS send useless for backup or archival purposes.
... unless the backup/archive is also on zfs with enough redundancy (e.g. raidz). -- Fajar _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
