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