On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:08:07PM -0700, David Lang wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Bill Bogstad wrote: > > There is almost always NO coordination between developers of filesystems and > backup software. The one exception is that sometimes the developers of the > filesystems create a low-level filesystem dump/restore tool
Yeah. If you look at the Linux dump, you'll discover that it's specific to the ext2/3/4 family. There's also an xfsdump. On btrfs and zfs, you can send to a file, and then receive from it later. > >I am never sure if I can > >backup and restore the more advanced semantics of modern filesystems. > >As a result, my tendency > >is to stick to the 1980s POSIX model. Admittedly my recent > >experience is 100% Linux, are things any better in the *BSD or Solaris > >world? i.e. Do filesystem developers "bless" backup software as > >being > >100% able to backup/restore all of the features they implement? > > In those worlds, there isn't a wide variety of filesystems, and the > backup/restore software either targets the default filesystem, or it targets > the POSIX features and ignores anything else. It turns out that for many use cases, you either want a dd image of the filesystem or you only really care about the POSIX semantics. And if neither of those fit the bill, the specific filesystem you pick will tell you what you should use. -dsr- _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
