Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:12:49 -0400 From: Paul Kraus <paul@kraus-haus.org> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Clarification on simple, incremental ZFS backup Message-ID: <8EDC3394-3288-4D75-9A94-1589732DACEE@kraus-haus.org> In-Reply-To: <86y4izajna.fsf@WorkBox.Home> References: <861tgsaruw.fsf@WorkBox.Home> <55940F2E.6060009@freebsd.org> <86y4izajna.fsf@WorkBox.Home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 1, 2015, at 13:10, Brandon J. Wandersee = <brandon.wandersee@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? You need to start with a FULL stream, then you apply incremental streams = to it. On the replica you end up with all the snapshots from the source. = So the process I follow is: Take a snapshot Send full stream -> recv to a designated backup pool (all it contains = are copies of other datasets) Take another snapshot Send incremental stream of changes between two snapshots -> recv to same = dataset repeat ... I take hourly snapshots on all my datasets and replicate nightly. If you need a full recovery you zfs send a FULL stream in the reverse = direction (and you can choose which snapshot to send, and even send them = all once the first FULL is done using -I). -- Paul Kraus paul@kraus-haus.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8EDC3394-3288-4D75-9A94-1589732DACEE>