On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:52:29PM +0900, Nathan Ollerenshaw wrote: > On Oct 1, 2003, at 10:51 PM, DI Peter Burgstaller wrote: > > >That is exactly the beauty of dump. I would have suggested dd for > >backup/restore but there > >you have the problem of identical fdisk settings. Dump/restore can > >deal well with bigger partitions. > > Definitely use dump. > > Its much faster than anything else and if you really learn how to use > it, you can do incremental backups very quickly.
Just quickly, does dump/restore's incremental backups do correct system "snapshots", accurately recording deleted/renamed etc files, or does it just backup files with ctimes/mtimes greater than the last backup? Last time I looked, which was admittedly a long time ago, very few tools did incremental backups "properly". You couldn't accurately restore a full system from an incremental backup... you would get extra files that had been deleted by the time of the incremental backup. Even worse, many backup tools just use mtime/ctime to detect "changed files", which misses renamed files. I'm pretty sure dump/restore was one of the ones that didn't do it properly. At the time one of the few that did incrementals right was a little shell script called "tob". I believe another more recent tool that does is rdiff-backup. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donovan Baarda http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
