On 10/21/05, Scot Jenkins <scotjenkins at gmail.com> wrote: > > > tar is probably going to be the most portable and is not filesystem > specific. If you currently have an ext3 filesystem and later decide > to move to xfs or reiserfs, tar will allow you to do that. dump on > the other hand will not. There are supposedly corruption issues with > ext3 and dump with the 2.4 kernels. > > http://dump.sourceforge.net/isdumpdeprecated.html > > That said, I've used both tar and dump for years without problems, and > I have restored a number of systems due to failed drives. I run a > full (dump level 0 once/wk) and partials (dump level 1) the other 6 > days of the week. I dump to an NFS mounted partition and that goes to > tape once/wk. It works well for me. > > Make sure you have statically linked versions of whatever program you > need to restore your backups: restore(1), tar(1), etc. Otherwise > you're the media you boot off of to do the restore will need to > contain the required libraries. RH used to have a separate package > that contained a statically linked version of /sbin/restore > (dump-static, I think it was called). Debian stable ships a > dynamically linked version of dump/restore so it's an issue on that > OS. > > /tmp by nature, is "temporary" so you might choose not to back that > up. Just make sure you inform your users of that if you decide NOT to > back it up. What are your filesystems like? Is each one a physical or logical partition of a drive instead of an lvm controlled filesystem within a volume group? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20051021/3b0fdb19/attachment.htm