Re: timestamp(?) problems with incremental dumps

Lasse Kliemann <[email protected]> wrote:

> But I tried something else, maybe it's interesting:
>
> - Filesystem A is busy, take snapshot S from it.
> - Synchronize filesystem B with S using 'rsync -axH --inplace'.
> - Remount B read-only.
> - Take an incremental dump from B.
> - Restore the incremental dump(s) taken this way to a filesystem C.
> - Compare the contents of S with C using diffopts=3D\!ctime,\!lmtime,\!at=
ime.
> - Release S.
> - Start over after some time.
>
> So, in B we keep a kind of "mirror" of A, which has the advantage that we=
 can =

> mount it read-only and that it is not a snapshot. B is not changed betwee=
n =

> iterations; all we do with it is one run of rsync before each dump. (With =

> rsync 3.0.0 a patch [1] is suggested for this.)

Could you tell us how the speed of a rsync call and an incremental star =

dump/restore compare? Which is faster and what is the difference?



J=F6rg

-- =

 EMail:[email protected] (home) J=F6rg Schilling D-13353 Be=
rlin
       [email protected]                (uni)  =

       [email protected]     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspo=
t.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/sch=
ily