Rob van der Heij wrote:
On 7/24/06, Adam Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It strikes me that file-level backups are generally a lot easier to
work with, and use less archival media.
File level backup is great for "oops backup" when you erased a few
files and want them back. I am not sure whether you ever tried to
restore the entire server from file level backups when you lost the
disk. Typically you will need to re-install a new system and then
restore your backups on top of that.
_I_ expect to boot a recovery system (on Intel it would be a bootable
CD, but on Zeds I imagine I'd have a small system ready), repartition as
my backup suggests. mount and copy - untar or whatever.
I expect some application-specific work, but I don't see a good way
round that (without other penalties).
Whether a file-level backup is quicker than volume-level, like so much
else, depends. dd (for example) minimises head movement, tar (for
example) backs up only files actually mentioned in the directories.
dump combines the two, but still has problems wirh files (maybe
filesystems) that can be written.
--
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
