Cameron Simpson wrote:
If the storage device does not do compression, then from a reliability standpoint, you are better off with per file compression as opposed to total backup compression. The reason for this is that if a compressed file gets corrupted, you lose that file, but if a compressed back gets corrupted, you have a hard time recovering the files after the corruption.On 19Mar2008 17:24, Tom Holroyd <tomh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | Show of hands: compress backups? Or 1:1 copy. My choice? No per file compression. Let the storage substrate compress if possible - eg modern tape drives do it on their own. Or if it doesn't, you might compress the "archive of everything" file (eg a tar or dump file).Otherwise you have to do "special" stuff on restore; it's untidy.This position is a gross simplification of things of course. Example: there are systems I backup with rsync to a new hardlinked tree from yesterday's snapshot. Obviously this is 1:1, with incremental cost. It goes to tape from an uncompressed tar file because the tape drive does some compression.
Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
