SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

July 2014

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:21:53 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:25 AM, ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I have notes on how to restore the whole potato with
> "restore" that I will share with anyone the needs it --
> just ping me in the subject line.

Fast compared to "build partitions, mount them, rsync from upstream
snapshot or copy tarball, run 'grub-install in chroot cage', reboot" ?
My first dump/restore experience goes back 25 years, and I always
found the "tower of hanoi" based system of backup tape number and
stacking to be quite burdensome. It used to be vital when tapes were
expensive and backup media small, but in these days of bulky external
drives, it seems quite pointless.

The rsnapshot style snapshots on a separate pile of disk is also very
fast to generate incremental updates for and can be much easier to
provide backup access to users for. Even if you need media based
backups, I'm personally going to be extremely surprised if modern
dump/restore is faster than tarball based backups such as AMANDA
provides.

Do you have any measurements to verify your claims of speed?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2