I'm sure that's true. My point was that, given the choice between a zfs send/recv from one set of devices to another, where the target is another pool, and sending a zfs stream to a tarball, I'd sooner choose a solution that's all live filesystems.
If backups are *really* important, then it's certainly better to use a product with commercial support. I think Amanda is zfs-aware now? On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Miles Nordin <car...@ivy.net> wrote: >>>>>> "b" == Blake <blake.ir...@gmail.com> writes: > > c> There are other problems besides the versioning. > > b> Agreed - I don't think that archiving simply the send stream > b> is a smart idea (yet, until the stream format is stabilized > > *there* *are* *other* *problems* *besides* *the* *versioning*! > > _______________________________________________ > 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
