Re: Raw I/O vs files (was Re: Raw partitions / cooked files)

In article <1993Jul29.213213.25205@exlog.com> lparsons@exlog.com (Lee Parsons) writes: >Ok fair enough, We are all products of our environments. I for one have >heard the words 'Oh I was suppose to add that disk to the backup routine >last week' far to many times to feel real good about the idea of adding >a data file that can't be backuped by find . -name *.dbf -print | cpio . > >I could go on about the bad things associated with raw, but you would >correctly rebuttal with 'But that only happens when someone doesn't >do their job right' or 'But what's a worst case situation'. This is a simple [sic 8-)] issue really. Each kind of backup is correct and necessary in a well maintained system. The file-wise backups are necessary if you ever want to restore to a different system (or the same sysem partitioned differently) and a raw image backup is the *only* good way to roll-forward a whole system based on a system journal cause you know the *exact* state at the time of the backup and therefore exactly what state the backup will recreate. (e.g. a full restore will effectively remove spurious data that you *think* isn't significant) >Unfortunatly, I have been stung enough times in both cases to make me >gun shy. You can be stung by having either one but you cant be stung by having both. Robert White Network Administrator National University