Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:19:32PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Or, if you want a local copy too and don't want to burden the
>> target with 2 runs, just do a straight uncompressed rsync copy
>> locally, then let your remote backuppc run against that to save
>> your compressed history on an encrypted filesystem.
>
> Can you expand on that a bit? I'm not sure I'm following you.
Instead of running backuppc locally to your source data, just have one
machine that has copy of everything. This could be done with scripted
rsync runs or any number of other ways. You might not want the host
holding these copies to be able to initiate a connection to the real
servers for an extra layer of security, so the copies might be scheduled
operations on each data source. Then your remote backuppc server
connects only to this server and backs up whatever you've dumped there.
The local copy would not be compressed or encrypted so your remote
rsync can work efficiently. You end up with yesterday's backup being
available locally for quick access, the offsite history compressed for
efficiency, and the remote server doesn't need direct access to the
targets. The main downside it that it adds a possible point of failure
and you don't get automatic notification if the first copy doesn't happen.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
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/
