On 16/02/2010 23:26, Vincent Fox wrote: > Clement Hermann (nodens) wrote: >> The snapshot approach (we use ext3 and lvm, soon ext4) is promising, >> as a simple tar is faster than using the full backup suite on a >> filesystem with a lot of small files (atempo here). But you need the >> spare space locally, or you need to do it over the network, and it >> will take time (but won't probably kill disk I/O as much as the backup >> software). >> > That is one of the strengths of COW. Snaps are atomic > and are simply pointers into a block structure that is no > longer writeable, it is not the same as snapshots of old when a > 100G filesystem needed another 100G space for the snap. > Agreed (LVM snapshots work the same way), but you still need to backup the content of your snapshot. Hence the use of tar, and the need for space. Cheers, -- Clément Hermann (nodens) ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
