PLS COMMENT: *ONE* zfs safest, foolproof(est)? Re: ZFS: A *nested* zfs down within a higher-up zfs: SNAPSHOT the top one, bot one done too?

In article <hhh7io$qjl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Combs <dkcombs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <HMOdne8_6c_C46rWnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mark Musante <user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/> wrote:
It will be one snapshot per dataset, but you can use send/recv recursively as well, so you can treat them as a single snapshot, and generate a single stream to write to tape.

---
frmsrcurl: http://compgroups.net/comp.unix.solaris/ZFS-A-nested-zfs-down-within-a-higher-up-zfs-SNAPSHOT-the-top-one-bot-one-done

So (considering ALL the responses to this thread thus far), for a one-user
machine, the really simplest (and foolproof, least chance of screwup) is
to have but ONE zfs, and snapshot THAT, and write IT to tape,
etc.

Myself -- knowing myself, that is -- having several zfs's
(via a a single top-level recursive snapshot)
around to write to tape -- seems like way to easy
to screw up, to forget to save, etc.

(A *professional* sysadmin, of course, might well do
it differently.)

So, before I cement myself into a design, does what I
propose for me, for my single-user machine, sound reasonable
enough?

SAFE enough?

Comments, please...


THANKS!

David



If the other posts (ie warnings) in this thread are
"zfs: that's the way it works -- like it or not!", about
NOT being able to via a SINGLE top-level "level-0" zfs
snapshot (to later save to tape), and get *everything*,
INCLUDING NESTED ZFS'S AND *THEIR* SUBTREES, etc,

that far and away the SAFEST and MOST FOOLPROOF way to
go is to have only ONE zfs in the pool --

so I *can* via a *single* snapshot, get it ALL.


(Note that this is still just a simple ONE-user machine!)

Thanks!

David

(I didn't even suspect that nested zfs's caused the multitude
of complications of snappshotting, as detailed in the very
surprising but excellently informative posts earlier on
this same thread, until I saw those very posts.

Simply NO SUCH DOCUMENTATION (and implicit warnings) anywhere
else I've seen. (Why not? Sure seems to be **ESSENTIAL** info.)


OH -- maybe those of you who know people who are currently writing
texts on Solaris-10 and/or openSolaris -- ask them to include
this info, with work-around examples, in detail.


David


.