On 10/20/2012 01:10 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arne Jansen <sensi...@gmx.net > <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>> wrote: > > On 10/19/2012 09:58 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Arne Jansen <sensi...@gmx.net > <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net> > > <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>>> wrote: > > > > We have finished a beta version of the feature. A webrev for it > > can be found here: > > > > http://cr.illumos.org/~webrev/sensille/fits-send/ > > > > It adds a command 'zfs fits-send'. The resulting streams can > > currently only be received on btrfs, but more receivers will > > follow. > > It would be great if anyone interested could give it some testing > > and/or review. If there are no objections, I'll send a formal > > webrev soon. > > > > > > > > Please don't bother changing libzfs (and proliferating the copypasta > > there) -- do it like lzc_send(). > > > > ok. It would be easier though if zfs_send would also already use the > new style. Is it in the pipeline already? > > > Likewise, zfs_ioc_fits_send should use the new-style API. See the > > comment at the beginning of zfs_ioctl.c. > > > > I'm not a fan of the name "FITS" but I suppose somebody else already > > named the format. If we are going to follow someone else's format > > though, it at least needs to be well-documented. Where can we > find the > > documentation? > > > > FYI, #1 google hit for "FITS": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FITS > > #3 hit: http://code.google.com/p/fits/ > > > > Both have to do with file formats. The entire first page of google > > results for "FITS format" and "FITS file format" are related to these > > two formats. "FITS btrfs" didn't return anything specific to the file > > format, either. > > It's not too late to change it, but I have a hard time coming up with > some better name. Also, the format is still very new and I'm sure it'll > need some adjustments. > > -arne > > > > > --matt > > > > I'm sure we can come up with something. Are you planning on this being > solely for ZFS, or a larger architecture for replication both directions > in the future?
We have senders for zfs and btrfs. The planned receiver will be mostly filesystem agnostic and can work on a much broader range. It basically only needs to know how to create snapshots and where to store a few meta informations. It would be great if more filesystems would join on the sending side, but I have no involvement there. I see no basic problem in choosing a name that's already in use. Especially with file extensions most will be already taken. How about something with 'portable' and 'backup', like pib or pibs? 'i' for incremental. -Arne > > --Tim > > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
