Buchan Milne wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Well, then not everyone has working dump/restore. Last time I checked, > the opinion of lkml was that dump/restore (except on XFS using > xfsdump/xfsrestore) WILL NOT WORK in 2.4. Ever.
You'll just have very bad dumps. If the file is open in read-write mode the file might still be dirty in memory, so the dump will have a bad file. If you use ext3 all data is commited to disk right away, so your dumps will be "more clean". But yea, XFS is the only FS on linux with a true working dump/restore. > So that's why I am asking what the point is of updating non-xfs > dump/restore. > > Maybe I am wrong, but that's my reason for asking. Dump for ext2 is pretty crappy. on an active filesystem you will have files that are "backup up" that are just crap.... But chances are you don't have all your files open and being chanded anyway... So a dump on ext2 is crappy, but better than nothing. :) Read this thread on lkml, it started a big flamewar about backups: http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0207.2/0020.html -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology Phone: 818 354 2903 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
