> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tristram Scott > > When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no official > replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore.
Let's go into that a little bit. If you're piping zfs send directly into zfs receive, then it is an ideal backup method. But not everybody can afford the disk necessary to do that, so people are tempted to "zfs send" to a file or tape. There are precisely two reasons why that's not "officially" recommended: 1- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. You can't selectively restore a single file. 2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is corrupt in the data stream, the whole stream is lost. Regarding point #2, I contend that zfs send is better than ufsdump. I would prefer to discover corruption in the backup, rather than blindly restoring it undetected. Also, since the invention of zstreamdump, you are able to detect any corruption during stream generation... And you are able to verify integrity of a stream after it is written to its destination. All of this serves to minimize the importance of point #2. Regarding point #1, I'll agree ufsdump has an advantage, which is ability to do a selective restore. Again, ZFS does have an answer to this, which is to pipe the send directly into a receive. Not always possible, but that's the answer. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
