On Monday 03 April 2006 00:26, Dan McGhee wrote:
> Well, it's time to make sure that I don't lose my BLFS system and to
> clean up (re-partition) my hard drive. There seems to be a number of
> ways of "backing up" the system and I'm looking for opinions on the
> various options. [I've also read myself cross-eyed and am suffering
> from a slight touch of confusion :-) ].
>
Well, I'm no expert, never having backed up anything before, but I won't let
that stop me from offering my two cents (-;
> In the past, I've just copied the files and directories, I wanted to
> save, to a CD. Although I've never suffered from any file corruption, I
> want to make sure that when I back up the root filesystem that I can get
> everything back. There are also "back ups" and actually creating a
> backup. In thinking about all of this I have generated the following
> questions:
>
> 1. What are the pros and cons of creating an actual back up with
> something like AMANDA or DAR vs copying the / directory tree to a
> removable media?
Most comprehensive backup solutions include some kind of bootable system to
rescue lost boot partitions, whereas just copying directories requires having
some way to copy it back. I.E., if you only copy / to a CD, and then your /
partition dies, how do you boot the box to copy it back?
Of course you can just use a LiveCD or develop your own bootable backup CD
image, rather than using a backup solution. That would be the LFS way, but
sometimes it's nicer to have something 'just work' rather than trying to
'roll your own'. Then there's the issue of your MBR and partition table (-;
> 2. What are the pros and cons of creating archives vs. copying files
> and directories?
Archives just put a bunch of files/directories into a single file, simplifying
the job of copying things back. it's easier to un-tar a bunch of files into
place than copying a load of them. Also, tar and friends can intelligently
copy as well. Only replacing files that are newer, only copying what you
want, creating incremental backups and whatnot.
> 3. What are the pros and cons of using tar vs. using cpio?
Don't know, can't tell ya (-;
> 4. Whether straight files or archives are there many risks in
> compression. If so, do the space saving advantages on removable media
> outweigh the risks?
Compression adds quite a bit of risk, with little benefit. If the compressed
file gets corrupt, you risk loosing everything inside it. with un-compressed
files, you can often extract most of the files. If you have space, I'd
recommend NEVER compressing your backups or archives.
>
> Space will probably not be an issue. Once I get it configured and
> running I have dual layer DVD capability.
>
So, don't compress. It's not worth the risk if you have the space.
> Any and all insights are welcome.
>
These are just the comments of someone who's read about back-up solutions, but
never use them myself, so take what I say with a pinch of salt. I'm sure
others here have much more experience with backups and can offer their input
as well.
Cheers,
John Gay
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
