Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Bacula\s+and\s+ZFS\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Bacula\s+and\s+ZFS\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [Bacula-users] Bacula and ZFS (score: 1): Author: Gabriele Bulfon <gbulfon AT sonicle DOT com>; Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:18:52 +0200 (CEST); I understand this may sound a bit wary, but: what are the benefits of using Bacula on a ZFS storage rather than using Amanda or ZFS send bare utilities? I know Bacula supports ZFS acls, but we also u; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-06/msg00186.html (11,479 bytes)
2. Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula and ZFS (score: 1): Author: Chris Hoogendyk <hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu>; Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:19:21 -0400; ZFS is a peculiar animal. I don't mean that in a disparaging way, I love it. But it may require rethinking backup. As you say, ZFS send/receive doesn't provide for single file recovery. However, ZFS; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-06/msg00189.html (13,362 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]