Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:32:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, Peter Clutton <peterclutton@gmail.com>, "mike@lanline.com" <mike@lanline.com> Subject: Re: Backup solutions Message-ID: <20051126123044.B81764@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <437C776B.6000705@centtech.com> References: <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10511161819420.440-100000@mail.lanline.com> <57416b300511162006m4cfe53f8n6dc2bccb877a5567@mail.gmail.com> <437C776B.6000705@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Eric Anderson 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. > > rsync handles sparse files just fine. The problem I've had with rsync is that it wants to build a list of all files to be backed up. On my cyrus server, I have file systems with >6m files. This causes rsync to core dump when it discovers it can't allocate memory to hold the entire list at once. Recently I've taken to backing up with dump -L, as the snapshot facility means recovery after a failure is a lot easier -- you no longer have to worry about the fact that the first file in a directory might be backed up at 10:00am, and the second at 2:00pm, causing applications to get very upset. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051126123044.B81764>