On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:28:11AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > >Separate files seems much simpler... > > > > > > Yes, We need to stick to the KISS principle. > > ISTM that we could simply invent a new archive format of "d" for directory.
Yeah, you can always ZIP (or whatever) the resulting directory when you're done.. But looking at it from a "backup tool perspective", like if you want to integrate it in your network backup solution, that might make it harder. Being able to deliver over a single, or over multiple, pipes is what's needed there. If you need to dump it to disk first and can only "pick it up" later, that'll require a lot more I/O and disk space. But I'm not sure that's a concern we need to think about in this case, just wanted to mention it. > BTW, parallel dumping might be important, but is really much less so > than parallel restoring in my book. By far. The only case where you want the backup to max out your system would be during an "offline upgrade"... You don't want a regular backup to max things out, because it will slow other things down. Whereas if you're doing a restore, you most likely want your data back up ASAP. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
