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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
