From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 15 21:19:06 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29071106567D; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:19:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DE08FC2B; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:19:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <487D144A.7060301@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:19:06 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Chadwick References: <1216130834.27608.27.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <20080715145426.GA31340@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <1216136877.27608.36.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <20080715210553.GA56968@eos.sc1.parodius.com> In-Reply-To: <20080715210553.GA56968@eos.sc1.parodius.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sven Willenberger , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Multi-machine mirroring choices X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:19:06 -0000 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:47:57AM -0400, Sven Willenberger wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 07:54 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >>> ZFS's send/recv capability (over a network) is something I didn't have >>> time to experiment with, but it looked *very* promising. The method is >>> documented in the manpage as "Example 12", and is very simple -- as it >>> should be. You don't have to use SSH either, by the way[1]. >> The examples do list ssh as the way of initiating the receiving end; I >> am curious as to what the alterative would be (short of installing >> openssh-portable and using cipher=no). > > rsh or netcat come to mind. I haven't tried using either though. > I wouldn't recommend either for the obvious reasons: weak or no authentication and integrity protection. Even if the former is not a concern for some reason then the latter should be (your data stream could be corrupted in transit and you'd never know until you tried to verify or restore the backup). Kris