Thomas Maier-Komor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
> > send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
> > actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
> > implementation.
> >
> > star is a userland archiver.
> >
>
> The man page for zfs states the following for send:
>
> The format of the stream is evolving. No backwards compati-
> bility is guaranteed. You may not be able to receive your
> streams on future versions of ZFS.
>
> I think this should be taken into account when considering 'zfs send'
> for backup purposes...
A cleanly written filesystem provides clean and abstract interfaces to do
anything you like with the filesystem, it's content and metadata. In such an
environment, there is no need for a utility that knows the disk layout (like
ufsdump does).
Star has the advantage that it can do anything ufsdump can do without knowing
about the UFS disk layout and it creates archives that are guaranteed to be
readable my any POSIX compliant archiver. You may lose the ability to get all
properties and metadata from a backup if you don't use star for extration but
any other POSIX archives is able to extract the content of any single file in
the archive.
If you like to keep backup archives for a longer time, it is a good idea to do
this in a well documented POSIX compliant archive format as star does.
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
