I understand Legato doesn''t work with ZFS yet. I looked through the email archives, cpio and tar were mentioned. What''s is my best option if I want to dump approx 40G to tape? -Karen -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karen Chau wrote:> I understand Legato doesn''t work with ZFS yet. I looked through the > email archives, cpio and tar were mentioned. What''s is my best option > if I want to dump approx 40G to tape?Am I correct in saying that the issue was not getting the files to tape, but properly storing complex permissions and information about the filesystems? My read of the thread was that if you use classical Unix permissions (or don''t mind manually resetting ACLs), and don''t mind recreating all of the volumes manually, any traditional backup solution (like tar) will work fine. After all, you can stat and read the files on a zfs volume! -Luke -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3271 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20060823/302b4a83/attachment.bin>
Luke Scharf wrote:> Karen Chau wrote: >> I understand Legato doesn''t work with ZFS yet. I looked through the >> email archives, cpio and tar were mentioned. What''s is my best option >> if I want to dump approx 40G to tape? > Am I correct in saying that the issue was not getting the files to tape, > but properly storing complex permissions and information about the > filesystems? > > My read of the thread was that if you use classical Unix permissions (or > don''t mind manually resetting ACLs), and don''t mind recreating all of > the volumes manually, any traditional backup solution (like tar) will > work fine. After all, you can stat and read the files on a zfs volume! >That is not correct, at least with respect to Legato. The Legato software aborts the entire backup when it receives ENOSYS from the acl(2) syscall. Legato receives the ENOSYS because it was trying to find out how many POSIX draft ACL entries exist on a given file. Since ZFS doesn''t support POSIX draft ACLs it returns ENOSYS. Whereas, other backup software take the ENOSYS to imply an unsupported operation and will continue to backup the data without ACLs. Netbackup will work, but it will silently drop ACLs on the floor.
> The Legato > software aborts the entire backup when it receives ENOSYS from the > acl(2) syscall. Legato receives the ENOSYS because it was trying to > find out how many POSIX draft ACL entries exist on a given file. Since > ZFS doesn''t support POSIX draft ACLs it returns ENOSYS. Whereas, other > backup software take the ENOSYS to imply an unsupported operation and > will continue to backup the data without ACLs.For those folks that like to live just *over* the edge and would like to use ACL-less backups on ZFS with existing networker clients, what is the possibility of creating a pre-loadable library that wrapped acl(2)? Have it just hand off the same result except return 0 when the actual call was an error set to ENOSYS. Backups would still have to mess with either legacy mounts or explicit save set specification, but those are much easier tasks. -- Darren Dunham ddunham at taos.com Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
Luke Scharf <lscharf at vt.edu> wrote:> Karen Chau wrote: > > I understand Legato doesn''t work with ZFS yet. I looked through the > > email archives, cpio and tar were mentioned. What''s is my best option > > if I want to dump approx 40G to tape? > Am I correct in saying that the issue was not getting the files to tape, > but properly storing complex permissions and information about the > filesystems?cpio is not a good idea, it is amongst other problems limited to 8 GB per file with the POSIX format, the SVr4 cpio format is limited to 4 GB per file.> My read of the thread was that if you use classical Unix permissions (or > don''t mind manually resetting ACLs), and don''t mind recreating all of > the volumes manually, any traditional backup solution (like tar) will > work fine. After all, you can stat and read the files on a zfs volume!If you don''t need ZFS ACLs, I recommend star. It supports true incremental backups using a similar strategy than ufsdump for the incrementals. Star does not yet support ZFS ACLs but it does support UFS ACLs. Another feature of star star is of interest for backups is multi volume support in a way that allows you to start restoring with any volume (in case you don''t like to do an incremental restore but are just looking for single files). J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 14:38 -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:> For those folks that like to live just *over* the edge and would like to > use ACL-less backups on ZFS with existing networker clients, what is the > possibility of creating a pre-loadable library that wrapped acl(2)?I may regret admitting this, but I''ve managed to implement something very much like this.> Have it just hand off the same result except return 0 when the actual > call was an error set to ENOSYS.That''s what I thought, but networker gets upset when it''s handed a zero-element acl. UFS provides a 4-element acl conveying the same information as file owner, group, and mode; my LD_PRELOAD hack had to do likewise. - Bill