1 |
Another way to do (I do it actually) |
2 |
|
3 |
Is to get a drive with ext3 partition for example |
4 |
Create a directory for your backup |
5 |
|
6 |
and use Rsync to copy any file with differential feature. |
7 |
|
8 |
First time could take a long time, next time are very fast. |
9 |
|
10 |
To backup everythink on the system, I run the single use mode, |
11 |
It kill all the application runned ... so after, I mount bind root fs and over |
12 |
sub fs in tmp dir, mount my backup dir in another tmp dir |
13 |
and run mirror with rsync |
14 |
|
15 |
Fast, excellent, could easyly be migrate on another kind of server, or could |
16 |
restore only some filesystem. |
17 |
|
18 |
It's good ! |
19 |
|
20 |
Good luck |
21 |
|
22 |
Le Wednesday 05 March 2008 12:55:41 Michael Schmarck, vous avez écrit : |
23 |
> Crayon Shin Chan <crayon.shin.chan.uk@×××××.com> wrote: |
24 |
> > On Sunday 02 March 2008, davecode@××××××××××.net wrote: |
25 |
> >> "What supports what" is a good reason for non-filesystem backups. For |
26 |
> >> example partimage has trouble with XFS (still...after all these |
27 |
> >> years...). A program like dd doesn't care the fs. Call it a device |
28 |
> >> backup if you like. This is your basic choice in backup - device or |
29 |
> >> fs. Me personally, dd_rescue - far better than raw dd. |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > The advantage of something like partimage, which knows about the |
32 |
> > filesystem being backed up, is that it can back up only the used portions |
33 |
> > of the fs. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Yes, it can. But you achieve the same (only used stuff is backed up) |
36 |
> with a simpler tool like "tar" as well. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> > So eg if you're backing up a 20GB partition of which only 1GB |
39 |
> > is in use, then using partimage it will be very quick and the resulting |
40 |
> > image very small. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Then the tar file will also be just 1GB. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> I really don't see the benefit in using things like partimage or |
45 |
> Ghost. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Michael |