hanj wrote: > Hello > > I think I want to avoid this, it'll use too much disk. Won't NTBackup > just make a large .bkf file? Which will be different every night when > dirvish runs? Also, new TDB files could be created/deleted, so just > selecting those in NTBackup will add just another thing 'to-do' for the > backup. As it stands now, it's very simple and takes little involvement > from anyone when the image changes. > > I'm hoping for a 'easy' solution, since we're dealing with < 10 .TDB > files causing problems on a semi daily basis. I'm hoping for a rsync > flag (not really seeing anything) that can ignore those files if > they're locked or move them if they're free.
No, my suggested solution *doesn't* use NTBackup, I just mentioned it because VSS is what NTBackup uses to avoid file-locking. You'd still be using rsync to back up the volume, you just have to use the script I linked to in order to create a VSS snapshot first. Because the VSS snapshot is a read-only version of your disk, none of the files can be locked. And no, this doesn't actually use extra space just to create the snapshot. You *can* use VSS to make a copy, but usually the use is to make a `clone'. A clone shares the same bits with the copy, and then it does copy-on-write so that the point-in-time snapshot is saved while still making changes. So you only would need extra space to store any *changes* that happen during the dirvish run; after that you blow away the clone so the space is recovered by freeing the saved blocks of files that had had changes made. Eric
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
