[ ... ]
>> All which leads to think that not many people have used non
>> default log sizes, or used JFS with FAT32 or massive 'dd'ing,
>> or with 'noatime'... :-)
per> Nope, haven't tried any of the above
Not surprising... :-).
per> - for copying filesystems around, I tend to use rsync
per> instead of dd.
RSYNC is a bit slow though, especially same machine. I'll list
some faster alternatives in case someone reading this may
benefit...
Most of the time I do partition image (disc-to-disc) backups,
and actually using something a bit faster than 'dd', roughly
equivalent to a double 'dd' like:
dd if=/dev/hda6 bs=4k | dd bs=4k of=/dev/hdc6
for example. This gives me something like 25MiB/s sustained,
which is not bad (around 15MiB sustained over FireWire); it also
elegantly bypasses encryption layers etc, which are often slow.
For full file-by-file copy I prefer the classic double 'tar':
(cd /mnt/hda6 && tar -cS --one -b 8 -f - .) \
| (cd /mnt/hdc6 && tar -xS -p -b 8 -f -)
with some GNU 'tar' specific options, and which usually gives me
(on filesystems that are not too used0 something like 15-20MiB/s
on ATA.
After either an image or 'tar' backup one can use RSYNC,
especially in '-c' (checksum) mode to verify the data.
Incremental/differential backups can then be done if preferred
using something like http://WWW.rsnapshot.com/ which is based on
RSYNC.
Sorry if I have just preached to the choir here :-).
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
