From: Paul A. <ti...@io...> - 2008-01-04 15:52:16
|
3:31pm, Andreas Micklei wrote: > Am Freitag, 4. Januar 2008 schrieb Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom: >> On 01/03 09:46 , dan wrote: >>> i doubt that dd will do much better than tar, >> >> With the backuppc data pool, dd'ing the disk partition is several times >> faster than tar because it doesn't do all the seeks for the links. This has >> been my experience at least. >> >> I haven't tried 'dump'; but this may offer a comparable improvement. > > I have and it works really well. After reading some HOWTOs on dump/restore > (Google is your friend) it is quite easy to use and fast enough for me. With > some theoretical background about dump it's obvious that it performs better > than rsync or even tar with lots of hardlinks. > > Note that during dump the dumped filesystem should not be changed. It would be > best to unmount it or mount it read-only. Here at my site this is not > possible, so I just stop almost every daemon including backuppc before > starting the backup to get a consistent dump. I let BackupPC do it's work at > night and dump the disk array of the BackupPC Server to an external USB disk > at day. USB disks are swapped and stored off-site. This is probably the best > backup solution you can get without buying expensive tape loaders or similar > high-end equipment. > If you are using lvm2 (which is pretty common, given the necessary single-filesystem size for backuppc), then you should be able to take a snapshot of the logical volume, and backup from that. Paul |