From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 14 16:28:50 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3E116A4CE for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:28:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from merke.itea.ntnu.no (merke.itea.ntnu.no [129.241.7.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4280C43D4C for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:28:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from svein.h@lvor.halvorsen.cc) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by merke.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8285A13C643 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:28:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from maren.thelosingend.net (maren.math.ntnu.no [129.241.211.48]) by merke.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with SMTP for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:28:43 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 81774 invoked by uid 1001); 14 Mar 2005 16:28:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Mar 2005 16:28:26 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:28:26 +0100 (CET) From: Svein Halvor Halvorsen X-X-Sender: sveinhal@maren.thelosingend.net To: Jerry McAllister In-Reply-To: <200503141530.j2EFUQj15904@clunix.cl.msu.edu> Message-ID: <20050314172547.Y81679@maren.thelosingend.net> References: <200503141530.j2EFUQj15904@clunix.cl.msu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Content-Scanned: with sophos and spamassassin at mailgw.ntnu.no. cc: Jerry McAllister cc: "Loren M. Lang" cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's the easiest way to do a backup and verify? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:28:50 -0000 * Jerry McAllister [2005-03-14 10:30 -0500] > > [...] So then wouldn't a second dump of the same snapshot diffed to > > the tape device be a good for a verify? > No, because the condition of the files that you are dumping the second > time is different from the first time. : > Most places cannot afford to make file systems completely unavailable > for periods of time long enough (several hours, up to a couple of days) > to allow dump to be run twice without any changes being made to the > file system. Note the OP's use of the word "snapshot". I think he is right! Or if he isn't; it has nothing to do with the filesystem beeing changed, but rather something to do with the way the backup is written to tape. However, I do think snapshots could be used for exactly this.