Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:13:50 +1100 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Jonathan Stewart <jonathan@kc8onw.net> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS backups: retrieving a few files? Message-ID: <20101122221350.GA81098@johnny.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <4CEA8BA6.7080009@kc8onw.net> References: <20101122113541.GA74719@johnny.reilly.home> <4CEA8BA6.7080009@kc8onw.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:26:30AM -0500, Jonathan Stewart wrote: > On 11/22/2010 6:35 AM, Andrew Reilly wrote: > >Dump/restore doesn't work for ZFS. I *think* that I'm running > >backups in the appropriate equivalent fashion: I take file > >system snapshots (both absolute == level 0) and relative > >(incremental), and zfs send those to files on the backup disk. > > This is actively discouraged, there is no recovery ability when > receiving zfs streams so 1 bad bit would invalidate your entire backup. Hmm. Isn't that a problem that also affects the "sending snapshots" scheme that you describe, below? > The currently accepted practice is to create a ZFS file system on the > backup drive and just keep sending incremental snapshots to it. As long > as the backup drive and host system have a snapshot in common you can do > incremental transfers. This way you only have to keep the most recent > snapshot on the main system and can keep as many as you have space for > on the backup drive. You also have direct access to any backed up > version of every file. That sounds like a very cool notion. Not unlike the time-machine scheme. Interesting how different capabilities require going back and re-thinking the problem, rather than just trying to implement the old solution with the new tools. I'll see how I go with it... Cheers, -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101122221350.GA81098>