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. -- Andreas Micklei IVISTAR Kommunikationssysteme AG Ehrenbergstr. 19 / 10245 Berlin, Germany http://www.ivistar.de Handelsregister: Berlin Charlottenburg HRB 75173 Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE207795030 Vorstand: Dipl.-Inform. Heiko Schüler Aufsichtsrat: Dr.-Ing. Dirk Elias ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
