[rescue] Mounting and Dumping
mike at blackhairy.demon.co.uk
Thu Jan 15 11:34:17 CST 2004
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:54:01 -0600, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Sheldon T. Hall wrote:
> > I wonder if they got more complaints about this than Sun gets.
> I dump online filesystems without a problem all the time. Sun
> -recommends- it,
If you looked at the URL's I sent earlier you would see that Sun also
recommends *not* to use ufsdump in problematic situations. I'm sorry but
anecdotal evidence that it's ok just isn't good enough for me at work
(me at home is different) ... not when there's clear indications that some
people*do* have problems with it.
If it's not a big deal, why does fssnap exist ? Yes there are other uses
for fssnap (for example to overcome the consistency problem of
file-by-file backups), but I suspect that if ufsdump was problem free
you wouldn't see it.
> but it's really not a big deal if you run your
> backups while the system during periods of low load.
Yes but what qualifies as "low load" ? A number please (and I'm really
asking Sun who'll probably say zero)."low load" means different things
to different people.
More information about the rescue