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?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu's Zsys Client/Daemon For ZFS On Linux Continues Maturing For Eoan
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Dedobot View PostPoor windows system restore point, have it in mind aways when typing beadm
To actually use the windows feature (online snapshots) reliably and intelligently you always need to use a commercial backup software.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostTo actually use the windows feature (online snapshots) reliably and intelligently you always need to use a commercial backup software.
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
-
Originally posted by Chugworth View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Chugworth View PostThat'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?
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
Comment