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:
ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:34:10 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (75 lines)
On 07/29/2014 02:32 AM, Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
> Hi ToddAndMargo!
>
>   On 2014.07.28 at 10:38:36 -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote next:
>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>>    Is xfsdump any better?
>
> Not exactly, it's the same as regular dump, just "for xfs".
> Same things apply. From man page:
>         xfsdump requires root privilege (except for inventory display).
>
>         xfsdump can only dump XFS filesystems.
>
>         The  media format used by xfsdump can only be
>         understood by xfsrestore.

Hi Vladimir,

Root only is perfect for what I use it for.  I don't
want the users anywhere near it.  I even leave the
backup drives dismounted, when not in use to keep
them out of sight from the users.

Only being able dump XFS is fine with me.  That is
all I will be using it for.

I have had some really nasty crashes were dump/restore
saved my business, which would have been ruined without
it.  Portability was never an issue.  Dump/restore
worked perfectly.

When I have to transport file here and there, I usually
use whatever format the other system easily recognizes.
And, yes, FAT32 stinks, but ...

>>
>>    What do you prefer in its place?
>>
>
> Just use tar or dar (http://dar.linux.free.fr/) for simple backups..
> Later is my personal favourite.
>
> (other backup software usually takes some time to configure, and cpio is
> a bad choice for a number of reasons)
>
>>    It looks like a full wipe to go to 7 and xfs anyway.
>
> No one forces you to use xfs. Actually, I (and some other people I know)
> are sure to continue using proven & reliable ext4 for root filesystem.
> xfs is a good option for big storage, but I see no real benefits of
> using it for OS storage. And since some things are a bit more
> complicated in xfs than in ext4, there really is no point to use it
> unless you are interested in some xfs-specific benefits. Xfs offers no
> performance nor features compared to ext4 for small filesystems.
>

Actually, although I don't care for the wiping part, I
am pretty excited about the new XFS file system.  And, if
I am to do any more servers for my clients, I will want
to stay current.

If anything, I am going to have some troubles with
the new start up (init.d) in 7.  But, I will eventually
learn that too.

You know on the wiping front, it would remove a lot of
garbage I have collected over the years.  Might be
a blessing in disguise.

Thank you for helping me with this!

-T

ATOM RSS1 RSS2