| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 09:51:47PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote: |
| 2 |
> Understood - I have seen that article too. I must say, I've mainly had |
| 3 |
> experience with 'dump' on Freebsd and 'xfsdump' on Linux, and never had |
| 4 |
> restore issues with *either* of these. Now I'm not sure whether these are |
| 5 |
> supposed to be better than 'dump' on Linux aimed at ext2|3 filesystems - |
| 6 |
> certainly Freebsd's 'dump' has an option to tell it that it is dumping a |
| 7 |
> 'live' filesystem, and the man pages for xfsrestore have notes concerning |
| 8 |
> what happens when restoring an (xfs)dump from a 'live' filesystem - so they |
| 9 |
> may well be! |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
FreeBSD's softupdates should make filesystem state always consistent, |
| 12 |
metadatawise. Or so I think I remember, its been a while. That might |
| 13 |
aleviate some of the problems noted on the dump page I referenced. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> On the other hand I've certainly routinely seen cases of people using dd |
| 16 |
> (rsync, cpio, tar etc) and coming to grief at restore time. I am reluctant |
| 17 |
> to suggest that folks use xfs and hence get access to xfsdump, as one of |
| 18 |
> the nice things about Linux is the choice of a variety of filesystems - |
| 19 |
> but it is pretty important to get able to backup of (for instance ) / ... |
| 20 |
> and you usually don't have much option other than doing it live! |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I use rdiff-backup for my backups but then again I have low requirements |
| 23 |
wrt. consistency outside file-level. I have considered LVM snapshots |
| 24 |
since I use LVM already but havent bothered so far. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Cheers, |
| 27 |
Rasmus |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives