From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <3A4D4AB6.545DF214@wrkhors.com> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:38:46 -0600 From: Steven Lembark MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] OK to backup physical volume to tape? References: <3A4D0C25.A4BB534B@xenotrope.com> <3A4D2939.C089EC3B@wrkhors.com> <3A4D337B.5835DE56@xenotrope.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > I think I may have to forget about LVM and divide the 130 GB space into > slices that can fit on tape. if you don't have an autoloader then one day's backup cannot exceed a single tape unless someone changes the tape by hand. slicing the total space up into multiple mount points won't effect that. you can do the same thing without separate mounts points by using several directories under /dir1 that each hold one tape's worth of data and then: find /dir1/a | blah find /dir2/b | blah if you prefer to back up all of the data then you will have to use multiple tapes no matter what method you choose. at that point cpio will work as well as anything else, it'll patiently wait for you to change the tapes by hand -- no autoloader required. none of this has anything to do with LVM or mount points, per se. one trick i've used in the past to pack tapes was finding all the files, sorting them by decreasing size and assigning them using a least-slack rule (i.e., whichever tape has the most unused space gets the next file). this won't solve your multi-tape issue but can help if you prefer not to span tapes with a single backup. -- Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer St. Chicago, IL 60647 lembark@wrkhors.com 800-762-1582