Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 08:52:01 +1000 From: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> To: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> Cc: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Best remote backup method? Message-ID: <20070517085201.73e347b3@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20070516205504.GD97410@slackbox.xs4all.nl> References: <437646E3279CED649940FB48@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <20070516202735.GB97410@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <20070516205504.GD97410@slackbox.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:55:04 +0200
Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> And, if you _really_ screw things up, like 'rm -rf foo *'
> instead of 'rm -rf foo*' from /usr/bin, bunzip2 and restore are right there
> in /rescue, while rsync isn't. And getting rsync to work when /usr/bin is
> hosed is quite a lot of work (no compiler etc).
>
> And yes, these things happen (speaking from personal experience). :-(
>
> So making backups with something that is available in /rescue or on the
> boot CD is definitely a huge plus. Because if you need those backups,
> chances are you need them badly.
Very true.
Also, dump/restore allows you to use snapshots on a live filesystem (I would
test it properly on a large FS with heavy activity).
Now, if you are worried about "backing up the whole filesystem"...well, just
tell dump not to dump it :)
man chflags (in particular, the nodump flag)
man dump (in particular, -h )
having said that, each tool has its advantages.... i use rdiff-backup for my
laptop, but dump/restore on servers .
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
If you were supposed to understand it, we wouldn't call it 'code'.
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070517085201.73e347b3>