On 18/01/2010 18:28, Lassi Tuura wrote:
Hi,
Here is the big difference. For a professional backup people still typically
use tapes although tapes have become expensive.
I still believe that a set of compressed incremental star archives give you
more features.
Thanks for your comments!
I think I roughly understand the feature trade-offs, and have some experience
with back-up solutions ranging from simple to enterprise.
I guess what I am after is, for data which really matters to its owners and
which they actually had to recover, did people use tar/pax archives (~ file
level standard archive format), dump/restore (~ semi-standard format based on
files/inodes) or zfs send/receive (~ file system block level dump), or
something else, and why? (Regardless of how these are implemented, hobby
scripts or enterprise tools, how they dealt with possible media failure issues,
etc.)
Other than the file system vs. file restore, is there any concern in doing the block level thing?
"Concerns" as in "mind being in the line of fire if it fails?" :-)
What we are doing basically is:
1. incremental rsync from a client to a dedicated filesystem for that client
2. snapshot after rsync finished
3. go to #1 for next backup
a pool is a dynamic stripe across raidz-2 groups + hot spares.
Then selected clients along with all their backups (snapshots) are
replicated to another device which is exactly the same hardware/software
configuration.
Add to it a management of snapshots (retention policies), reporting,
etc. and you have a pretty good backup solution which allows you to
restore a single file or entire filesystem with a very easy access to
any backup. And it works for different OSes as clients.
See more details at
http://milek.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-presentation-at-losug.html
--
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
