Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:06:10 -0500 From: Daniel Hagerty <hag@linnaean.org> To: Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Sp=C3=B6rlein?= <uqs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Zpool surgery Message-ID: <c2ilibd41yl.fsf@perdition.linnaean.org> In-Reply-To: <20130128085820.GR35868@acme.spoerlein.net> (Ulrich Sp's message of "Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:58:20 %2B0100") References: <20130127103612.GB38645@acme.spoerlein.net> <1F0546C4D94D4CCE9F6BB4C8FA19FFF2@multiplay.co.uk> <20130127201140.GD29105@server.rulingia.com> <20130128085820.GR35868@acme.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein <uqs@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> But are you then also supposed to be able send incremental snapshots to
> a third pool from the pool that you just cloned?
I can't speak to your problems, but I did recently do what you seem
to be doing, without incident. That is, I had a pool and an archive. I
copied datasets from pool to a new pool', and pool' could send to the
archive as if it were the original pool.
Two possible differences in what I do that leap to mind:
1. I only send select snapshots to archive; the synchronization
snapshots are not among them.
2. I use receive -F.
> How does the receiving pool known that it has the correct snapshot to
> store an incremental one anyway? Is there a toplevel checksum, like for
> git commits? How can I display and compare that?
I don't know for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that:
$ zfs get -p guid pool/home@daily-2013-01-28
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
pool/home@daily-2013-01-28 guid 259258190084829958 -
plays a part.
Good luck!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c2ilibd41yl.fsf>