Date: 23 Mar 1999 10:13:23 +0200 From: Osma Ahvenlampi <oa@razorfish.fi> To: Beau James <bjames@cisco.com> Cc: aic7xxx@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SOFTWARE-RAID-TIPS (was: Adaptec 7890 and RAID portIII RAID controller Linux Support) Message-ID: <m3aex4fwt8.fsf@dhcp-144.razorfish.fi> In-Reply-To: Beau James's message of "Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:42:35 -0800 (PST)" References: <199903221642.IAA01524@frogger.cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Beau James <bjames@cisco.com> writes: > --> It's true that separate partitions help when you're using dump/restore > --> for backups, but unfortunately dump/restore are a problematic pair for > --> backups (especially on Linux). > > Would you mind elaborating on both those points (why separate partitions > help backups, and why you consider dump/restore problematic)? dump/restore work on entire filesystems below the OS filesystem layer (thus allowing a backup/restore without touching file access or modification times, which is nice). That means it's not easy (or even possible?) to back up less than the entire filesystem. Combined with the fact that dump has no built-in compression and does not handle multi-volume archives on Linux, it's not the most ideal choice for backing up large RAID filesystems. > With most reasonable-capacity tape drives these days, that seems like a > small win. What do you consider a reasonable capacity? I'm dealing with 30 GB systems on a daily basis, and I don't consider that a particularly large system (the administrators at our other offices work with 120 GB and larger filesystems). 100GB per tape would be a reasonable capacity for me. Unfortunately, 100GB tape equipment is nowhere near reasonable to purchase. -- Osma Ahvenlampi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe aic7xxx" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3aex4fwt8.fsf>