TAR x Fbackup

[Vogra]

Hi All!
I choose fbackup instead TAR to backup my system. Before (with TAR) the total time was five hours to backup entire site. Now (with Fbackup), my backup is occurring in two hours! I recovery some files, but not all (I dont have space). I think it's ok. What do you think about it? It's Ok the savings about time? My site has about 35 Gbytes. My Tape is a DLT8000 connected in a Ultra 2SCSI and the disks are in an array 12H Opt: STD.

Thanx.

[Edward Alfert_2 · Accepted solution]

Did you say that you weren't able to successfuly backup all the data using fbackup but you were with tar? you ran out of space on the tape? if so, just make sure that everything you want backed up gets backuped up first on the tape. I don't like the idea of not knowing EXACTLY which files were not backed up.

Time savings in backup is NOT more important than a good backup. The GOAL is to make a good backup, not how fast you can do a poor backup.

[Thierry Poels_1]

hi,
fbackup is generally faster than tar. Only if you have a massive amount of small files tar will outperform fbackup.
On the other hand if files are in use, fbackup will restart copying these files and might loose lot of time and tape while doing so.

regards,
Thierry.

[James R. Ferguson]

Hi Claudio:

'fbackup' is designed to be efficient. You have the ability to control some of it performance with options in its 'config' file. One of these options is the number of "readerprocesses". The more of these that run, the faster data will be collected. The default value is two (2) and the maximum is six (6). See the man pages for 'fbackup' for more details.

Regards!

...JRF...