Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:56:45 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Amanda or Bacula Message-ID: <20031014185645.GF21069@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <87fzhv3c64.fsf@strauser.com> References: <200310141824.h9EIOABk024964@quarter.csl.sri.com> <87fzhv3c64.fsf@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Oct 14), Kirk Strauser said: > At 2003-10-14T18:24:10Z, Mike Hogsett <hogsett@csl.sri.com> writes: > > That can work, but I dont like using tar in place of dump. > > Various sources recommend using tar instead of dump on live > filesystems. The essence of the argument is that dump writes the > filelist at the beginning of the backup, then writes the file > contents. Tar writes a filename, then the contents, then another > filename, then that file's contents, etc. If the filesystem is > inactive then this is a non-issue. If it's quite active, though > (like /var, /home), then tar's system may lead to more consistent > backups. If you're running 5.x, you can use dump -L, which will snapshot the filesystem and back that up. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031014185645.GF21069>