Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 23:59:13 +0200 From: Svein Halvor Halvorsen <svein.h@lvor.halvorsen.cc> To: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Restore UFS snapshot Message-ID: <4658ADB1.3050807@lvor.halvorsen.cc> In-Reply-To: <20070526211201.GA40139@slackbox.xs4all.nl> References: <465864F4.7060500@lvor.halvorsen.cc> <20070526180336.GB34660@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <465884E3.5000500@lvor.halvorsen.cc> <20070526194342.GA37130@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <465898D5.7080607@lvor.halvorsen.cc> <20070526211201.GA40139@slackbox.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roland Smith wrote: > You could use rsync instead of tar. That would save time. I'm not talking about saving time. But saving CPU time and HDD stress. However, the disk space issue is a bigger one: >> (b) Undo all the bit flipping I have done, since I made the snapshot. > > This is what the procedure above does if you replace the tar commands > with rsync. No, because the snapshot will still be in use, and hence all its bits will be kept intact and read-only. When I use rsync/tar/cpio or whatever to "undo" changes to a file system, I will in reality copy these bits to different places on the disk. And until I release the snapshot (which I very well could, since it would defunct after the restore process), I will use twice the amount of disk space. Svein Halvor -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: mailto:pgpkey@svein.halvorsen.cc to get my PGP-key iD8DBQFGWK2vhQg3vZGYu0ARAk/5AJ9QksQAbmwKTJLkwKGhISMpMvOEZgCgwG5u s7bYTdMu9DEIylAhTCeepzI= =5cD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4658ADB1.3050807>