i wish i could help more on smb backups but found them to be lacking for my
needs so i now do rsync or rsyncd incrementals depending on the platform i
am backing up. on windows machines i use rsyncd with great success and on
unix machines i use rsync over ssh as the rsyncd on my machines doesnt seem
to be compatible(sco and dux) with the current rsync version. the only
thing i dont like about rsync over ssh is having to setup ssh keys for each
machine. not a big deal but not something i want to put on every machine on
my network. rsyncd on windows is much easier, especially if you use a
wrapper like deltacopy. i build a deltacopy install with all the config
files into an installer with NSIS for super fast deployment on my network.
am considering installing cygwin ssh client and making a script to
automatically add the host to the config file.
On 10/30/07, Holger Parplies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Kenneth Porter wrote on 30.10.2007 at 07:35:03 [[BackupPC-users] rsync
> versus other transports (was: Tar use)]:
> >
> > I'm using smb (easy to set up initially) and was considering deploying
> > rsync to my Windows 2003 servers. How does the smbclient's incremental
> tar
> > actually work? Is it using some incremental feature of the SMB protocol
> I'd
> > been previously unaware of, or is it just enumerating the remote
> directory
> > tree and collecting files with timestamps newer than a reference
> timestamp?
>
> timestamps. As BackupPC uses the smbclient executable, it cannot compare
> file lists but only pass in a timestamp and get back all newer files in a
> tar stream. I've read of plans to use a Perl module instead of smbclient
> (which sounds promising), but I have no idea whatsoever if and when that
> change might be expected.
>
> > Will rsync also look only for "newer" files or will it also detect the
> > arrival of older files (eg. copied in from a workstation that touched
> them
> > before the last full backup)?
>
> rsync should take file trees and all attributes into account, meaning it
> should both detect older files as you described and files that changed in
> length but kept the timestamp for instance. rsync will also detect
> deletion
> of files.
>
> If you're looking at the exactness of incremental backups, rsync is way
> ahead of tar/smb. I believe this, rather than bandwidth considerations,
> warrants a general recommendation of rsync.
>
> Regards,
> Holger
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
