On 2011-Jan-28 21:37:50 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey <opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: >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.
OTOH, it renders ZFS send useless for backup or archival purposes. With ufsdump, I can probably recover most of the data off a backup even if it has some errors. Since I'm aware of that problem, I can separately store a file of expected checksums etc to verify what I restore. If I lose a file from one backup, I can hopefully retrieve it from another backup. With ZFS send, a 1-bit error renders my multi-GB backup useless. I can't get ZFS to restore the rest of the backup and tell me what is missing - which might let me recover it in other ways. -- Peter Jeremy
pgppzMAxBmwjV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
