On 18-Apr-07, at 5:22 PM, J.P. King wrote:
Can we discuss this with a few objectives ? Like define "backup" and
then describe mechanisms that may achieve one? Or a really big
question that I guess I have to ask, do we even care anymore?
</lurk>
Personally I think you would benefit from some slightly different
terms. I would differentiate between backups and archives. Here I
am trying to move away from tape based backups. We do backups to a
disk based system. There is no technical reason why this couldn't
be done with zfs send | zfs receive.
Then there are archives.
Your distinction is one I've always found helpful.
I am exceptionally fortunate that my group don't really have to
deal with these. If I did then, despite the significant drop in
price for hard drive based storage, I'd still go for a tape based
system. I don't know of anyway to do this usefully under zfs.
Except by simply using ZFS itself: ZFS on redundant hard drives has
much better archival properties than previous generations of
filesystem, so it may be worth reconsidering.
--Toby
I don't believe that there are any good/useful solutions which are
free that will store both the data and all the potential meta-data
in the filesystem in a recoverable way. I've never been impressed
enough with any of the commercial solutions, and certainly not
enough to give someone money for them.
<lurk>
Julian
--
Julian King
Computer Officer, University of Cambridge, Unix Support
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
