1 |
Wols Lists wrote: |
2 |
> On 04/08/20 08:42, Wols Lists wrote: |
3 |
>> Both LVM and btrfs offer snapshotting, so you take a snapshot before |
4 |
>> doing an in-place rsync, giving you one full backup per snapshot, but |
5 |
>> the drive is actually only storing the changes between snapshots. |
6 |
>> Probably run the backup much faster too. |
7 |
> Just strikes me this would be near ideal for an SMR drive, because this |
8 |
> would be copy-on-write, so the backup would just be streaming new data |
9 |
> to disk. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> And by judiciously choosing when to delete snapshots, you have |
12 |
> considerable control over when the drive decides to do a defrag. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Cheers, |
15 |
> Wol |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
I've never used those features of LVM before. Most likely, I should. |
21 |
I've had occasion to do a backup and then wish I had a old file back |
22 |
that was deleted during the new backup process. Example. I have a copy |
23 |
of a video for a particular show. I find a better version, HD or |
24 |
something, and download it. I then remove the old one and find out |
25 |
shortly after that it's the wrong episode or something. At that point, |
26 |
I'm missing a episode. I'd rather have a standard definition version |
27 |
than none at all. I suspect doing it the way you mention I'd be able to |
28 |
get that old copy back provided that snapshot hasn't been deleted yet. |
29 |
The way I do it now, once I update the backups, old stuff is deleted. |
30 |
|
31 |
Also, I just did another fairly large update on the backups. Once it |
32 |
hit around 50GBs or so, it started slowing down again. It was even |
33 |
slower than last time. It was transferring at around 70MBs/sec. Of |
34 |
course, it could be partly because that drive is filling up. It's |
35 |
around 80% or so. |
36 |
|
37 |
Anyway. I need to look into the snapshot thing. Gotta find a howto. ;-) |
38 |
|
39 |
Dale |
40 |
|
41 |
:-) :-) |