From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 25 22:34:29 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0140F106564A for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:34:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from artemb@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE5A8FC13 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yhfq46 with SMTP id q46so8232471yhf.13 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:34:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4vwv7MdJSiJOsyjCL3dJo/dQCuvCcdixNfMShCbBsps=; b=jujuRZMIJUPuCehWuJY174nHWDmRyPuv1qOi9nOx1foM0sYm2eGoQ3ULZjXyvcpOy+ uA19SqlOI49H2YKCJjtDkQcRRjArtLkQyqg02EJpCjBbQwPH2AjVNbDFmNQVYjSXGbBZ eep7g0qpSjZnPzKfHNuSbx9SI4BBITIbpJawA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.174.2 with SMTP id w2mr30341360yhl.35.1324852467999; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:34:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: artemb@gmail.com Received: by 10.147.52.27 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:34:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20111225102719.GA44906@tolstoy.tols.org> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:34:27 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nNx--JRAPf-OSqr3Sx6ocS3RfwE Message-ID: From: Artem Belevich To: claudiu vasadi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Johannes Totz Subject: Re: Restoring received properties on a received filesystem. X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:34:29 -0000 On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 2:06 PM, claudiu vasadi wrote: > > But that leaves one the "daunting" task of manually mounting the pool before > any backups are run and also before a restore is attempted. > I believe there should be a cleaner solution to this. I'm not sure what would be the ideal behavior you have in mind. If I understand you correctly, you want to have properties transferred during send/receive, but in such a way that some of them (mountpoint?) are ignored or interpreted differently. Is that so? --Artem