Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll call your bluff. Is a zpool create any different for backup
> than the original creation? Neither ufsdump nor tar-like programs
> do a mkfs or tunefs. In those cases, the sys admin still has to
> create the file system using whatever volume manager they wish.
> Creating a zpool is trivial by comparison. If you don't like it,
> then modifying a zpool on the fly afterwards is also, for most
> operations, quite painless.
I don't see how this is related to backups.
You of course need to have an empty filesystem in case you like to
restore a set of incremental restore media created by ufsdump or star.
If you are talking about a way to remember special "tunefs" like metadata for
the whole FS, star is infinitely extendable and it is simple to add the ability
to store the related data in star's backups...
> What is missing is some of the default parameters, such as enabling
> compression, which do not exist on UFS. This is in the pipeline, but
> it is hardly a show-stopper.
This has been discussed with Jeff Bonwick and Bill Moore in September 2004.
Of yourse, star would need a way to read compressed ZFS files directly.
This is a "debt do be discharged at creditor's domicile" fort ZFS...
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
