<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Home Fileserver: Backups from ZFS snapshots</title>
	<atom:link href="http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/</link>
	<description>Complexifying simplicity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:25:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paranoid</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-17140</link>
		<dc:creator>Paranoid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:24:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-17140</guid>
		<description>Actually Simon, I think I&#039;m wrong. Sorry. ZFS send and receive should be fine so long as you aren&#039;t just storing ZFS send streams, to be received at a later date. Doh.

http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg19239.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually Simon, I think I&#8217;m wrong. Sorry. ZFS send and receive should be fine so long as you aren&#8217;t just storing ZFS send streams, to be received at a later date. Doh.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg19239.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg19239.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paranoid</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-17139</link>
		<dc:creator>Paranoid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-17139</guid>
		<description>Hi again Simon,

It&#039;s funny, I&#039;m looking to do something similar to this, but on FreeBSD. However, since I don&#039;t trust zfs send/receive, I&#039;ll be doing it with rsync as I want verification that the bits that end up on the target are the same as those that were read from the source. I&#039;m pretty sure that rsync does that. I think this means that in order to get the snapshot goodness on the backup (assuming a different pool), you have to clone the snapshot, rsync it across, and take a snapshot on the target.

I suppose you could do it with zfs send provided that you do some sort of MD5 check yourself afterwards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi again Simon,</p>
<p>It&#8217;s funny, I&#8217;m looking to do something similar to this, but on FreeBSD. However, since I don&#8217;t trust zfs send/receive, I&#8217;ll be doing it with rsync as I want verification that the bits that end up on the target are the same as those that were read from the source. I&#8217;m pretty sure that rsync does that. I think this means that in order to get the snapshot goodness on the backup (assuming a different pool), you have to clone the snapshot, rsync it across, and take a snapshot on the target.</p>
<p>I suppose you could do it with zfs send provided that you do some sort of MD5 check yourself afterwards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Haudy Kazemi</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-11828</link>
		<dc:creator>Haudy Kazemi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-11828</guid>
		<description>There have been some comments on the zfs-discuss mailing list and OpenSolaris forum that appear relevant to people intending to use ZFS send/recv for backups (especially long term backups between different builds).

On http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2008042301/
Sun&#039;s Matthew Ahrens says:
&#039;We have always disclaimed backwards compatibility of the &quot;zfs send&quot; stream format in the zfs(1m) manpage:

          The format of the stream is evolving. No backwards  com-
          patibility is guaranteed. You may not be able to receive
          your streams on future versions of ZFS.

However up until now we have maintained compatibility regardless.

All Solaris 10 releases use the new, post-build-35 stream format, so no incompatibility will be introduced to Solaris 10.

We plan to maintain backwards compatibility of the &quot;zfs send&quot; stream format throughout all releases of Solaris, and intend to commit to this backwards compatibility at some point in the future.&#039;


On http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=389857&amp;tstart=0
or http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg26438.html
Daniel Carosone says:
&quot;The zfs send/recv format is not warranted to be compatible between revisions.  

I&#039;m concerned that, despite clear recommendations and advice against it, there seem to be a number of solutions appearing (like automated backup to cloud, via the auto-snapshot hooks) that use the stream format for long term storage, even from those within Sun.  I think the message needs to be clear, either way - either endorse stream-format compatibility, or discourage such usage.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There have been some comments on the zfs-discuss mailing list and OpenSolaris forum that appear relevant to people intending to use ZFS send/recv for backups (especially long term backups between different builds).</p>
<p>On <a href="http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2008042301/" rel="nofollow">http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2008042301/</a><br />
Sun&#8217;s Matthew Ahrens says:<br />
&#8216;We have always disclaimed backwards compatibility of the &#8220;zfs send&#8221; stream format in the zfs(1m) manpage:</p>
<p>          The format of the stream is evolving. No backwards  com-<br />
          patibility is guaranteed. You may not be able to receive<br />
          your streams on future versions of ZFS.</p>
<p>However up until now we have maintained compatibility regardless.</p>
<p>All Solaris 10 releases use the new, post-build-35 stream format, so no incompatibility will be introduced to Solaris 10.</p>
<p>We plan to maintain backwards compatibility of the &#8220;zfs send&#8221; stream format throughout all releases of Solaris, and intend to commit to this backwards compatibility at some point in the future.&#8217;</p>
<p>On <a href="http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=389857&amp;tstart=0" rel="nofollow">http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=389857&amp;tstart=0</a><br />
or <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg26438.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg26438.html</a><br />
Daniel Carosone says:<br />
&#8220;The zfs send/recv format is not warranted to be compatible between revisions.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m concerned that, despite clear recommendations and advice against it, there seem to be a number of solutions appearing (like automated backup to cloud, via the auto-snapshot hooks) that use the stream format for long term storage, even from those within Sun.  I think the message needs to be clear, either way &#8211; either endorse stream-format compatibility, or discourage such usage.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-3633</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:58:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-3633</guid>
		<description>Thanks a lot Mark.

Also, it looks like the next versions of the &#039;Time Slider&#039; software in OpenSolaris 2008.11 will soon come with the ability to send incremental backups between two snapshots across the network to a second box, like a backup server. See:

http://blogs.sun.com/erwann/entry/zfs_on_the_desktop_zfs : look under the &#039;What&#039;s next?&#039; heading where it says &#039;- network based backups&#039;

I already have this functionality working on an adhoc basis, but it will be nice to have this setup once and then automated when this new functionality becomes available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks a lot Mark.</p>
<p>Also, it looks like the next versions of the &#8216;Time Slider&#8217; software in OpenSolaris 2008.11 will soon come with the ability to send incremental backups between two snapshots across the network to a second box, like a backup server. See:</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.sun.com/erwann/entry/zfs_on_the_desktop_zfs" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.sun.com/erwann/entry/zfs_on_the_desktop_zfs</a> : look under the &#8216;What&#8217;s next?&#8217; heading where it says &#8216;- network based backups&#8217;</p>
<p>I already have this functionality working on an adhoc basis, but it will be nice to have this setup once and then automated when this new functionality becomes available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-3600</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-3600</guid>
		<description>Those interested in doing backups with ZFS might want to take a look at Zetaback (available from https://labs.omniti.com/trac/zetaback ), which is a tool to help manage and automate backups using zfs snapshots.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those interested in doing backups with ZFS might want to take a look at Zetaback (available from <a href="https://labs.omniti.com/trac/zetaback" rel="nofollow">https://labs.omniti.com/trac/zetaback</a> ), which is a tool to help manage and automate backups using zfs snapshots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-2665</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:10:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-2665</guid>
		<description>Yeah, it is the access time the causes the warning, I hit the same thing myself.  This can be turned off with:

# zfs set atime=off tank/testback</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, it is the access time the causes the warning, I hit the same thing myself.  This can be turned off with:</p>
<p># zfs set atime=off tank/testback</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-2336</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-2336</guid>
		<description>Very nice article!
I was wondering if there is the possibility to directly mount a filesystems with only the files changed between two snapshots!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very nice article!<br />
I was wondering if there is the possibility to directly mount a filesystems with only the files changed between two snapshots!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-1271</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 16:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-1271</guid>
		<description>Hi Marc, thanks a lot for solving that mystery -- I was a wondering what caused it :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Marc, thanks a lot for solving that mystery &#8212; I was a wondering what caused it <img src='http://breden.org.uk/wordpress/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc</title>
		<link>http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/comment-page-1/#comment-1267</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 11:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://breden.org.uk/2008/05/12/home-fileserver-backups-from-zfs-snapshots/#comment-1267</guid>
		<description>The reason why an ls changes the file system is probably because access times or other file / directory attributes are being modified... That would also explain the &quot;growth&quot; in a snapshot in the previous article even though you hadn&#039;t changed the files or added any - by looking at the directories you are affecting them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason why an ls changes the file system is probably because access times or other file / directory attributes are being modified&#8230; That would also explain the &#8220;growth&#8221; in a snapshot in the previous article even though you hadn&#8217;t changed the files or added any &#8211; by looking at the directories you are affecting them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
