From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 9 09:22:54 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AAD430F for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:22:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cu01176b.smtpx.saremail.com (cu01176b.smtpx.saremail.com [195.16.151.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28A8AEFD for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.2.2] (izaro.sarenet.es [192.148.167.11]) by proxypop04.sare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14C559DC4F8 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:22:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Borja Marcos Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: zfs send -R not replicating holds Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:22:45 +0200 Message-Id: <55079EE9-CA03-4FCD-AA07-2087E31673E9@sarenet.es> To: "freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Filesystems" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:22:54 -0000 Hello, I've noticed that a zfs send -R does not actually replicate holds which = is, in my opinion, surprising in the wrong way, as the=20 manual for "zfs send" says: "-R Generate a replication stream package, which will = replicate the specified filesystem, and all descendent file = systems, up to the named snapshot. When received, all properties, = snap- shots, descendent file systems, and clones are = preserved." Reading that I would assume that a hold is a kind of property (unless of = course we limit the definition of "property" strictly to the properties handled by "zfs = get/set").=20 I am playing with ZFS dataset replication and holds seem like an ideal = way to mark snapshots for preservation (for example, in a "time machine" style). In that case, = it would be great if the=20 process of replicating a snapshot to a backup server and marking it with = a hold was atomic rather than doing the replication and applying the relevant holds later. Is there any provision for this, is it an oversight or is there any = reason I am missing not to do it that way? (apart from possible zfs send stream format incompatibilities) Borja.