Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:10:33 -0500 From: Brandon J. Wandersee <brandon.wandersee@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clarification on simple, incremental ZFS backup Message-ID: <86y4izajna.fsf@WorkBox.Home> In-Reply-To: <55940F2E.6060009@freebsd.org> References: <861tgsaruw.fsf@WorkBox.Home> <55940F2E.6060009@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman writes:
> Yes, for *backup* using ZFS snapshots, you don't really want to use the
> replication stream form of 'zfs send' -- just sending an incremental
> update from a previous snapshot or bookmark means you can
>
> - save the data on your backup server to a different path
> - keep a lot more snapshots (ie. history) on your backup server
> - not have to keep the snapshots for old backups on the source
> server
>
> So long as the source and backup machines have a snapshot in common, or
> even just a bookmark[*] on the source side corresponding to a snapshot
> on the server side, then you're golden.
Sure, but then what happens in the worst-case scenario, where the source pool
needs to be clobbered and replaced? That's what I understood the purpose
of replication to be--a means of completely restoring a system that's
beyond recovery. If I were to create a snapshot and then send it to the
backup drive, I couldn't later restore a complete filesystem from it,
could I? I'd need a complete replica to make that happen, correct?
--
=================================================================
:: Brandon Wandersee ::
:: brandon.wandersee@gmail.com ::
==================================================================
'A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.'
- Douglas Adams
==================================================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86y4izajna.fsf>