Re: [Duplicity-talk] Direct backup of LVM snapshot partitions?

[edgar . soldin]

On 11.12.2012 10:09, GDR! wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 10:10 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>> On 10.12.2012 19:01, GDR! wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 01:16 PM, George MacKerron wrote:
>>>> Thanks Edgar. Yes, I'm already using LVM snapshots. I just wanted to then 
>>>> back up the raw volume data, rather than mount the snapshot and back up 
>>>> the files it contains.
>>>
>>> Just to justify what he's doing and point that "just mount it" is not a
>>> good answer: he might want to back up a Windows partition that he's
>>> using in KVM, or some other file system which has special attributes
>>> which may be lost when mounting in Linux. I've been facing this problem
>>> too, but came up with no solution.
>>>
>>
>> i see your point. but even in that case a snapshot would be the better 
>> option. if there really is no way to keep all attributes* the he can still 
>> dump the snapshot blockwise and backup that. the idea of a snapshot is that 
>> it is in a valid state, synced without any half written files or such.
>> not sure if lvm actually can assure the last bit for vm disk filesystems 
>> though.
>>
>> ..ede/duply.net
>>
>> * i am sure none of these would be backed up by duplicity anyway ;)
> 
> So you're suggesting dumping it (eg. with dd) and backing up the dump
> with duplicity?
> 
> My goal is to have remote, incremental backups of the volume, so just
> snapshots aren't really enough.
> 

i don't really see where you draw the line here. what do you think is the 
problematic difference between backing up the device snapshot or the live file 
system?

..ede