From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 17 14:06:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EDA16A41F for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:06:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from b.candler@pobox.com) Received: from thorn.pobox.com (thorn.pobox.com [208.210.124.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EE543D49 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:06:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from b.candler@pobox.com) Received: from thorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thorn.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257EA243; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mappit.local.linnet.org (212-74-113-67.static.dsl.as9105.com [212.74.113.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by thorn.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC11EF1; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by mappit.local.linnet.org with local (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1EckOp-00024y-MP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:06:03 +0000 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:06:03 +0000 From: Brian Candler To: Peter Clutton Message-ID: <20051117140603.GA7941@uk.tiscali.com> References: <57416b300511162006m4cfe53f8n6dc2bccb877a5567@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57416b300511162006m4cfe53f8n6dc2bccb877a5567@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, "mike@lanline.com" Subject: Re: Backup solutions X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:06:10 -0000 On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:06:11PM +1100, Peter Clutton wrote: > FWIW, i have read that by far the best is dump, because of the way it > deals with the raw data. No need to worry bout files with holes in > them (with other backup tools, this could mean you may not be able to > fit the file system back on after backup, if there are core files etc) > I believe i read this in the O'Rielly text Unix Power Tools, but could > be wrong. They also referenced an extensive test that was done by > someone, and gave the link. I will post it if i find it. You may mean the Zwicky "Torture Testing" paper: http://grox.net/doc/zwicky/testsuite/torture.pdf My 2 cents: don't judge a backup system by how easy it is to make backups. You should judge it by how easy and reliable it is to *restore* a complete and working image. That's harder than it sounds. If you're rsync'ing or tar'ing: how confident are you that you can quickly build an identical clone machine, with correct chflags() information, and with working boot blocks? Aside: I'd quite like to see a backup system which uses dump/restore, but also uses a crytographic hash of each file so you don't end up storing 100 copies of the same system files when backing up 100 machines. Anybody know of such a beast? Regards, Brian.