I concur with the assessment that tape is senseless at present.  Drives and 
media cost too much.

I mount my backup system via NFS and do a zfs incremental send to backup the 
client.  I did this primarily because it was easy to get correct and I don't 
need much.   As I recall I observed gigabit wire speed performance doing this.  
You could then do a zfs receive to unpack the incremental.  I'm not running a 
normal production shop, so I don't bother.  I rely on zfs on the client and the 
server to take care of things.  I copy the incremental blobs to a USB drive to 
store offsite.  USB disk is under $0.05/GB.  I'm not aware of any tape that is 
that cheap available in 3 TB unit sizes.

In summary consider this:

NFS mount a scratch space on the client
zfs send incrementals to the NFS mounted scratch space
after that completes zfs receive the incremental to unpack on the backup system
delete the zfs send blob

If you lose the client filesystem, just NFS export the backup to the client 
until you can replace the hardware.

The NFS traffic for this scenario is large files.  All the rest is local to the 
server or client. If that doesn't provide adequate performance I think there's 
some other problem that you need to look into.

Reg

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 7/10/14, Gabriele Bulfon via illumos-discuss 
<[email protected]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [discuss] zfs lofi file pool double mount
 To: "Reginald Beardsley" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
 Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014, 2:09 AM
 
 NFS is slow,
 expecially with small files.So what I'm
 trying to do is:
 
 - have the
 NFS client run his daily work on local zfs pools,
 fast.-
 have periodic zfs incremental send of these pools on the NFS
 lofi files- have the NFS
 server access these lofi files periodically to backup them
 old manner (tape)
 Just experimenting, to have some kind
 of zfs incremental backup over nfs
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Da: Reginald Beardsley
 <[email protected]>
 A:
 [email protected] Gabriele Bulfon
 <[email protected]> 
 Data: 9 luglio
 2014 18.16.16 CEST
 Oggetto: Re: [discuss]
 zfs lofi file pool double mount
 
 What are you
 trying to do?   It's  not possible for the server to
 have RO access and the client have R/W access.  The server
 has to have R/W to service the client requests.  
 
 As for making certain clients
 RO and other R/W, that's provided by NFS.  You can even
 make the NFS mountpoint RO on the server, but the physical
 mountpoint still has to be R/W at least for nfsd.  You
 *could* make the physical mountpoint completely inaccessible
 to anything other than nfsd by setting ownership and
 permissions properly.  
 
 You
 can actually do pretty much anything you can imagine using
 NFS maps.  Folding maps based on system architecture is one
 of my favorites, i.e.  /app/bin -> /app/${ARCH}/bin, but
 it's not needed much now that so much of the *nix world
 has converged on Linux.  Back during the workstation wars it
 was very useful.
 
 But again,
 what's the objective?
 
 Reg
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Wed, 7/9/14, Gabriele Bulfon via
 illumos-discuss <[email protected]> wrote:
 
  Subject: [discuss] zfs lofi
 file pool double mount
  To:
 [email protected]
  Date: Wednesday,
 July 9, 2014, 8:44 AM
 
 
 Hi,
 
  as
  an
 experiment.
 
  Let's say
 I have a zfs fs
  shared as an NFS resource
 to another illumos client.
  Let's say I
 have created a 152GB file on this
 
 resrouce.
  Let's say I have added the
 file as a lofi
  dev on the NFS server, and
 created a 512GB zpool on it.
  Finally,
 let's say I have added the file as a lofi dev
  on the NFS client too.
 
  Now I can export / import
  the
 pool both from the NFS server, and the NFS client.
 
  Obviously I can't import
 the pool from both
  machines.
 
  But...what if one would
 "import -f
  -o readonly=on" and
 the other would import -f
  read/write?
  Would it be possible?
  This
 would let
  me zfs send the client pool to
 the lofi pool on the NFS
  share, while have
 the server
  be able to read the
  contained files.
 
  Is it safe?
 
 
 Gabriele.
 
 
 
 
 
        illumos-developer | Archives
 
   | Modify
  
 Your Subscription
 
 
 
        illumos-discuss |
 Archives
 
   | Modify
   Your Subscription
 
 
 
 
       illumos-discuss | Archives
 
  | Modify
  Your Subscription
 


-------------------------------------------
illumos-discuss
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to