Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 15:39:42 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: kpneal@pobox.com Cc: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, karl@denninger.net Subject: Re: Musings on ZFS Backup strategies Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1303011538560.2804@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20130301192949.GB79829@neutralgood.org> References: <20130301165040.GA26251@anubis.morrow.me.uk> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1303011209321.2046@sea.ntplx.net> <20130301192949.GB79829@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, kpneal@pobox.com wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:23:31PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> Yes, we still use a couple of DLT autoloaders and have nightly >> incrementals and weekly fulls. This is the problem I have with >> converting to ZFS. Our typical recovery is when a user says >> they need a directory or set of files from a week or two ago. >> Using dump from tape, I can easily extract *just* the necessary >> files. I don't need a second system to restore to, so that >> I can then extract the file. >> >> dump (and ufsdump for our Solaris boxes) _just work_, and we >> can go back many many years and they will still work. If we >> convert to ZFS, I'm guessing we'll have to do nightly >> incrementals with 'tar' instead of 'dump' as well as doing >> ZFS snapshots for fulls. > > What about extended attributes? ACLs? Are those saved by tar? I think tar (as root or -p) will attempt to preserve those. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1303011538560.2804>