Post, Mark K wrote:
For one thing, full-volume backups preserve partition information, making recovery much simpler. If I had to recover a hundred Linux
My backup script does this: sfdisk >/etc/disktab -d /dev/hda
I _could_ copy it separately to a separate repository of this info, and I could handle similar info (eg filesystem labels, fstab) in a like manner: I have the info I need, and it doesn't make sense for _me_ to do anything more elaborate. When I initiated my plan, it included making a bootable DVD from which to restore. The last bit's not done, but the info I need is there and there are bootable systems _I_ can use (eg Knoppix) to use to do a manual restore.
systems, dig through the system documentation to figure out which partitions were what size, and belonged to these particular file systems or were LVM PVs (or md volumes), a lot of time could go by before we even started restoring data from tape. From my perspective, if we could fix just that part of the equation with some kind of automation/tool, then file level backups would be the only thing needed (aside from database-specific requirements/tools). Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Thornton Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Bad Linux backups -snip- Why is everyone so hung up on volume backups? It strikes me that file-level backups are generally a lot easier to work with, and use less archival media.
One has to think harder to get it right, and it's less obvious volume-level backups are risky. -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/ do not reply off-list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
