On Friday 20 Aug 2010 15:09:02 Farmol SPA wrote:
> So, whenever I create the snapshot I have a "static" copy of the source
> lv that I can copy with any method (eg rsync or netcat). At this point,
> please forgive me, I don't see the advantage of LVM snapshots than using
> directly the rsync approach on the "live" lv provided backuppc is
> sleeping during this period. Provided there is no activity on the source
> volume, how can the copy from the snaphost be faster than the direct
> copy? is there any hidden mechanism that do the trick?
> 
> Maybe I missed something.

You did; it's the hard link problem of BackupPC and rsync. See here:

http://www.tolaris.com/2010/04/23/using-lvm-to-make-a-live-copy-of-a-backuppc-
pool/

The LVM snapshot is so you can take a copy of the filesystem at the block 
level, not the file level. If you can unmount the filesystem, that would work 
too.

Tyler

-- 
"The intellectual is constantly betrayed by his vanity. Godlike he
blandly assumes that he can express everything in words; whereas the
things one loves, lives, and dies for are not, in the last analysis
completely expressible in words."
   -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by 

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/