On Friday 20 Aug 2010 15:09:02 Farmol SPA wrote: > So, whenever I create the snapshot I have a "static" copy of the source > lv that I can copy with any method (eg rsync or netcat). At this point, > please forgive me, I don't see the advantage of LVM snapshots than using > directly the rsync approach on the "live" lv provided backuppc is > sleeping during this period. Provided there is no activity on the source > volume, how can the copy from the snaphost be faster than the direct > copy? is there any hidden mechanism that do the trick? > > Maybe I missed something.
You did; it's the hard link problem of BackupPC and rsync. See here: http://www.tolaris.com/2010/04/23/using-lvm-to-make-a-live-copy-of-a-backuppc- pool/ The LVM snapshot is so you can take a copy of the filesystem at the block level, not the file level. If you can unmount the filesystem, that would work too. Tyler -- "The intellectual is constantly betrayed by his vanity. Godlike he blandly assumes that he can express everything in words; whereas the things one loves, lives, and dies for are not, in the last analysis completely expressible in words." -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
