Matthew Ahrens <Matthew.Ahrens <at> sun.com> writes:
> True, but presumably restoring the snapshots is a rare event.
You are right, this would only happen in case of disaster and total
loss of the backup server.
> I thought that your onsite and offsite pools were the same size? If so then
> you should be able to fit the entire contents of the onsite pool in one of
> the offsite ones.
Well, I simplified the example. In reality, the offsite pool is slightly
smaller due to different number of disks and sizes.
> Also, if you can afford to waste some space, you could do something like:
> zfs send onsite <at> T-100 | ...
> zfs send -i T-100 onsite <at> t-0 | ...
> zfs send -i T-100 onsite <at> t-99 | ...
> zfs send -i T-99 onsite <at> t-98 | ...
Yes, I thought about it. I might do this if the delta between T-100 and
T-0 is reasonable.
Oh, and while I am thinking about it, beside "zfs send | gzip | gpg", and
zfs-crypto, a 3rd option would be to use zfs on top of a loficc device
(lofi compression & cryptography). I went to the project page, only to
realize that they haven't shipped anything yet.
Do you know how hard would it be to implement "zfs send -i A B" with B
older than A ? Or why hasn't this been done in the first place ? I am
just being curious here, I can't wait for this feature anyway (even
though it would make my life soo much simpler).
zfs-discuss mailing list