From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Jul 1 17:10:42 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2038E99297D for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:10:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brandon.wandersee@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6E614A1 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:10:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brandon.wandersee@gmail.com) Received: by igrv9 with SMTP id v9so39346709igr.1 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=references:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; bh=jC80Ixnmij5NSqIocYXTh3oEywQPq8k6GYGww1ZIA3g=; b=auMdhgv9WRfOzAdl5/tiM74aTzqVHbA1ZuKzBKeYxnb86dAlatuaWnZcj5qYRaUptq yPYNYjstySPrZ9yq35K01enryJ29Txm4fwHLcEjFI2ixyfBzAV8l7F9YCneEEraCr0vb /2UYJdv8tVyh9uh+/gV9wfie6UIg3Bp8KPWlsMn6hKTMDEXxsuUHJeVCx2bIVwFty9Gv GWdA5N+nheW0Zaw8NaiAkbHZ8u++f/yusgsGX07YG3/itXty85RDfENaSpeJlAyElm2W 5Jp3PNwVKk3086Yg37/vqQtH+fFiQQk4yBX53VSskEGbO6qWoRp8J2OgOG4rpn8Y8kkh tJRw== X-Received: by 10.107.12.143 with SMTP id 15mr39600281iom.75.1435770635637; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WorkBox.Home.gmail.com (184-100-80-212.mpls.qwest.net. [184.100.80.212]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e3sm10586319igq.21.2015.07.01.10.10.34 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:10:34 -0700 (PDT) References: <861tgsaruw.fsf@WorkBox.Home> <55940F2E.6060009@freebsd.org> From: Brandon J. Wandersee To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clarification on simple, incremental ZFS backup In-reply-to: <55940F2E.6060009@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:10:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86y4izajna.fsf@WorkBox.Home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:10:42 -0000 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 ==================================================================