From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 25 16:05:01 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098C21065673; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:05:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from aldan.algebra.com (aldan.algebra.com [216.254.65.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA4D8FC0A; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:05:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from aldan.algebra.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aldan.algebra.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2PG4IfL083523; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:04:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Message-ID: <49CA5602.9050001@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:04:18 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081126) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Black References: <49C83673.3000604@aldan.algebra.com> <200903251232.11418.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <49C99204.2050601@aldan.algebra.com> <200903251334.38350.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <49C99FD2.50609@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Daniel O'Connor , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dump | restore fails: unknown tape header type 1853384566 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:05:02 -0000 Greg Black ΞΑΠΙΣΑΧ(ΜΑ): > On 2009-03-24, Mikhail T. wrote: > >> That's true. I just wanted to point out, that someone running dump only >> (to make backups) is not going to know, whether his dumps are usable >> (for whichever of the two reasons), until he needs them... >> > > Such a person is not making backups and deserves what he gets. > But he *is* making backups -- kindly re-read my paragraph above... He just is not routinely using them and thus does not know, that they aren't usable... It is not unreasonable to expect the two utilities to "just work", so I wouldn't be blaming such a person for not testing restore. That such a scenario is possible, despite the user making diligent regular backups, is a very bad sign... > I haven't got anything to say about dump/restore because I haven't > bothered with them for years. I do know that dumps from mounted file > systems will often appear to work, but will fail when it matters. This > is not a bug and is expected behaviour to which the solution is obvious. > FS being mounted read-only should not be a problem. And even read-write mounted filesystems will be Ok, although possibly inconsistent (a file modified during backup may get to into dump "as of" any point). But an idle FS is Ok to dump. Generally, when dumping read-write mounted filesystems, one is supposed to use snapshots, but that is very buggy on its own (leading to kernel crashes), so it is safer to rely on the FS being "idle", if it can not be forced into read-only for some other reason. -mi