Backup strategy for large mailbox stores

[nodens2099]

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)