Backup strategy for large mailbox stores

nodens2099 nodens2099 at
Wed Feb 17 05:49:22 EST 2010

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.


Clément Hermann (nodens)

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list