Anything specific to keep in mind restoring from rsync ? (Re: Any reason to prefer 11.1 over 10.3 ?)
pathiaki2 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 18 13:11:02 UTC 2017
I've gone another route. Try backuppc. It's a little harder to get
rolling with, but it's a viable OSS backup solution. It handles any
*nix via rsync. Also, rsync can handle just about all types of files
including links. *shrug* Just saying....
On 08/18/2017 08:59, Ian Smith wrote:
> In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 689, Issue 5, Message: 14
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:07:35 +0000 Manish Jain <bourne.identity at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 08/18/17 13:19, Matt Smith wrote:
> > > On Aug 18 07:35, Manish Jain wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I am going to have to install FreeBSD again on a box on which 10.3R
> > >> works well. Is there any reason I should prefer 11.1R ?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for any tips.
> > >> Manish Jain
> > >
> > > The main reason for 11.1 would be the expected end of life date when
> > > 10.3 will no longer be supported. As you can see from
> > > https://www.freebsd.org/security/security.html#sup that is April 30,
> > > 2018 whereas 11.1 will be 3 months after the release of 11.2.
> I see that 10.4 is due out in October. Unlikely to be an extended type
> release, but I expect it will still use the old release model, so should
> be good for a year or so .. but if anyone knows better, please say.
> > > Obviously you can upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4, or from 10.3 to 11.2, and
> > > from 11.1 to 11.2 quite easily, but it's easier to start with 11 than it
> > > is to start with 10 and do a major version upgrade.
> > >
> > > Unless there are any strange issues particular to your hardware 10 and
> > > 11 should work identically really.
> > >
> > Hi Matt/Others,
> > I decided that a fresh install would be too much effort considering the
> > ease of rsync to back up existing data.
> rsync is great for 'user data', but I'm not sure whether it handles hard
> links properly, which you'll want for system directories at least.
> Do you have some reason not to use the canonical dump(8) and restore(8)?
> I see you're using the Linux-style 'all on /' approach, but dump(8) only
> backs up used blocks and you can compress the output and pipe that back
> into restore(8): see the handbook and/or wonkity.com for good recipes.
> > The primary reason I am in the current muddle is that the / partition
> > has to be made bigger ( 30G -> 40G ). What I have done is rsynced (with
> > some exclusions) / to /mnt/backup
> > I have actually never restored data with rsync earlier. Precisely what
> > should I be doing to return copy out /mnt/backup over / ?
> > This is what I actually intend : if anyone spots something stupid,
> > please chime in now : - )
> > 1) Install 10.3 again on the larger root partition
> > 2) Reboot with the optical media and drop into a fixit shell
> > 3) Mount the intended slash at /tmp and the partition holding the
> > rsynced backup at /mnt
> If you're going with rsync, I strongly suggest not using /tmp; all sorts
> of things may use that for, well, temporary files during the operation.
> Better perhaps using /media, /dist or some directory you make: /mnt2 ?
> > 4) rsync from /mnt to /tmp
> Or restore(8) from a dump on say /mnt to (eg) /mnt2 .. but then what?
> > Is the above a decent approach ?
> > Thanks for any insight/suggestions.
> There are many ways :) I've always done well with dump/restore on UFS -
> though I'm only assuming you're using UFS? ZFS needs a different story.
> cheers, Ian
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions