zfs discuss - Feb 2009 - Can''t find results of send/receive on destination fs??

So I did this:

zfs send -R "rpool/export/home at bup-20090216-044512UTC" | zfs
receive\
 -dv "bup-ruin/fsfs"

And it indicated no errors, and said it was creating various expected
filesystems (pool bup-ruin was brand new at this test).

And afterward bup-ruin seemed to have reasonable filesystems in it:

localddb at fsfs:~/src/bup2# zfs list -r bup-ruin
NAME                                 USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
bup-ruin                            35.2M   913G    23K  /backups/bup-ruin
bup-ruin/fsfs                       35.0M   913G    18K 
/backups/bup-ruin/fsfs
bup-ruin/fsfs/export                35.0M   913G    18K 
/backups/bup-ruin/fsfs/export
bup-ruin/fsfs/export/home           35.0M   913G    19K 
/backups/bup-ruin/export/home
bup-ruin/fsfs/export/home/localddb  35.0M   913G  27.8M 
/backups/bup-ruin/export/home/loca\
lddb


localddb at fsfs:~/src/bup2# zfs list -t snapshot -r bup-ruin/fsfs/export
NAME                                                        USED  AVAIL 
REFER  MOUNTPOINT
bup-ruin/fsfs/export/home at bup-20090216-044512UTC               0      -   
19K  -
bup-ruin/fsfs/export/home/localddb at first                     26K      - 
27.6M  -
bup-ruin/fsfs/export/home/localddb at second                    28K      - 
27.6M  -
bup-ruin/fsfs/export/home/localddb at bup-20090216-044512UTC      0      - 
27.8M  -

And, checking a bit more deeply, the snapshot created for this backup is
there, and two previous snapshots are there.  Or claim to be there.

But I can''t actually find them anywhere.

localddb at fsfs:~/src/bup2# pfexec /usr/bin/ls -a /backups/bup-ruin/fsfs/export
.   ..
localddb at fsfs:~/src/bup2# pfexec /usr/bin/ls -a
/backups/bup-ruin/fsfs/export/.zfs
.         ..        snapshot
localddb at fsfs:~/src/bup2# pfexec /usr/bin/ls -a
/backups/bup-ruin/fsfs/export/.zfs/snapshot\
/
.   ..

Note that bup-ruin is mounted with an altroot property:

localddb at fsfs:~/src/bup2# zpool list
NAME       SIZE   USED  AVAIL    CAP  HEALTH  ALTROOT
bup-ruin   928G  35.3M   928G     0%  ONLINE  /backups/bup-ruin
rpool       74G  3.85G  70.1G     5%  ONLINE  -
zp1        744G   451G   293G    60%  ONLINE  -

I think I need this, because the filesystems being backed up onto it have
mountpoints of their own, and the originals are currently occupying those.

I''m about 100.0% sure this is user error (me being the user), but
I''m
stuck on this right now.  What am I expecting wrong?  Or doing wrong?

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On February 15, 2009 11:02:51 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at
dd-b.net>
wrote:
> So I did this:
>
> zfs send -R "rpool/export/home at bup-20090216-044512UTC" | zfs
receive\
>  -dv "bup-ruin/fsfs"
>
> And it indicated no errors, and said it was creating various expected
> filesystems (pool bup-ruin was brand new at this test).
...
> Note that bup-ruin is mounted with an altroot property:
...
> I think I need this, because the filesystems being backed up onto it have
> mountpoints of their own, and the originals are currently occupying those.
You do.
> I''m about 100.0% sure this is user error (me being the user), but
I''m
> stuck on this right now.  What am I expecting wrong?  Or doing wrong?
Works for me, Solaris 10 U6 x86.

-frank

On Mon, February 16, 2009 21:31, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On February 15, 2009 11:02:51 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at
dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>> So I did this:
>>
>> zfs send -R "rpool/export/home at bup-20090216-044512UTC" |
zfs receive\
>>  -dv "bup-ruin/fsfs"
>>
>> And it indicated no errors, and said it was creating various expected
>> filesystems (pool bup-ruin was brand new at this test).
> ...
>> Note that bup-ruin is mounted with an altroot property:
> ...
>> I think I need this, because the filesystems being backed up onto it
>> have
>> mountpoints of their own, and the originals are currently occupying
>> those.
>
> You do.
Finally made a simple enough situation that I could find it by brute
force.  They were up and over a level from where I expected them to be,
*and* there were empty filesystems where I expected them to be, which
confused things mightily.  But brute force searching for a file eventually
turned it up.  In hindsight, they''re exactly where they should have
been
:-).
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info