Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's Zsys Client/Daemon For ZFS On Linux Continues Maturing For Eoan

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    So finally some good decision that we could give Canonical some credit, or do you in your opinion think they could have 'dare' a bit more?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by horizonbrave View Post
      So finally some good decision that we could give Canonical some credit, or do you in your opinion think they could have 'dare' a bit more?
      With some of their decisions lately, it's like they're on drugs so they probably do need more 'dare'.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Dedobot View Post
        Poor windows system restore point, have it in mind aways when typing beadm
        That's trash (as most things integrated with Windows).

        To actually use the windows feature (online snapshots) reliably and intelligently you always need to use a commercial backup software.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
          This is great. We could have had this 10 years ago.. But oh no "licence fud panic religion".
          10 years ago ZFS was a different animal. It took ages and teh ZoL project to have it actually become something usable outside of "Big Iron" servers

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            To actually use the windows feature (online snapshots) reliably and intelligently you always need to use a commercial backup software.
            I deal with several Windows servers, and I don't use any commercial backup software. I mentioned my main backup strategy a few posts earlier (Windows snapshots + Cygwin + Rsync), and that works perfectly reliable if you don't mind doing some scripting. Of course I wouldn't expect to get a bare-metal restore with that method, but bare-metal restores are not important to me. If a server were to completely crash, I would just restore whatever data it had or whatever VMs it was hosting to a different machine.

            Generally, if I need to restore an older copy of a file or directory for whatever reason, my first stop is to just open the directory properties and look under the "Previous Versions" tab. The remote NAS backup is just there for the case of major hardware failure, and also to keep backups much further back in time than the server itself would normally keep.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Chugworth View Post
              I deal with several Windows servers, and I don't use any commercial backup software. I mentioned my main backup strategy a few posts earlier (Windows snapshots + Cygwin + Rsync), and that works perfectly reliable if you don't mind doing some scripting.
              Ok, scripting and setting your own scheduled tasks also works fine, good point.

              What I wanted to say above is that the feature itself (shadowcopy service and snapshots in general) is good, but the frontend (windows system restore) is useless garbage.

              Most (all?) commercial "online backup" applications are basically just frontends for the shadowcopy service (and infrastructure) in Windows.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Chugworth View Post
                That's one thing that I always find curious. Snapshots are one of the main features that people talk about when mentioning ZFS or Btrfs, but snapshots could be done in NTFS going all the way back to XP. I'm guessing the ZFS and Btrfs approach is more elegant?
                Yes, for ZFS and Btrfs it works by just telling the filesystem to freeze its current state and start writing any change in a new space. This isn't something particularly strange for a CoW filesystem (that's what they do already on every write) so it's relatively "easy" and "cheap" performance-wise.

                Shadowcopy works at the block level, it does incremental backups and offers file and folder restore, but it's more clunky because it has to run additional userspace stuff on top of NTFS to do its job of tracking files and backing up blocks while you are overwriting them.

                I don't know if Shadowcopy has a bigger performance impact than ZFS/Btrfs so I can't comment on that, but I know that back in Win7 days disabling shadowcopy to have more disk performance was a thing.

                Also, I have a strong suspicion that on XP the "volume shadow copy" was a much simpler affair that was simply making a copy of your files in another folder or something like that.

                Comment

                Working...
                X