Another option for doing backups is snapback2. It uses rsync, and has some really nice features. I have contributed an ebuild, and it can be found on http://bugs.gentoo.org, just search on snapback2.
Kevin On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:27:34 +0000, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:06:27 +0000, Steve wrote: > > > > > > > >> Fair comment... I stand corrected that rsync/rdiff-backup are > >> appropriate for backup of user files. This issue is an old one of trade > >> off between being able to make fast backups and being able to recover > >> quickly. IMHO the dd approach is still valid and useful as it is one > >> of the few ways to ensure rapid disaster recovery. I agree that an > >> rsync approach permits more frequent backups to be made for user > >> files. Maybe a better recommendation would have been a combination of > >> dd to take an image of the install - then rsync to keep regular > >> copies of user files. > >> > > > > > > I'd still disagree, rsync or rdiff-backup create an exact mirror of the > > file tree, so you have a backup that is extremely fast to restore from, > > especially for individual files. If I want an image of the partition, > > I'll > > use partimage as it is several orders of magnitude faster than dd and > > produces smaller archives. > > > > As a backup tool dd is about as friendly as backing up to punched > > cards :( > > > > > > > > > OK - I also admit that partimage would be a superior choice to dd... > I guess my only significant point is that a backup that quickly restores > devices etc. is not addressed best by trying to copy files. I guess I > inferred more from the original subject than you did. For a "Simple > Backup" where you want to duplicate "everything" from one drive to > another I remain convinced that you want to copy the partition(s) and > not the files - whereas for a more ambitious incremental backup strategy > of user files we agree that rsync/rdiff approaches may well prove superior. > Among the complications involved with rsync one should consider the > potential consequences of a hardware failure during an update phase; the > possibility that a file is accidentally deleted and the backup is > refreshed before the missing file discovered. > For a mail server, I can't help thinking that the ideal solution would > be some (possibly bespoke) mechanism to push emails from the primary > server to a secondary server (or maybe just a secondary disk) as it > arrives (possibly with a queue as necessary) and not to delete data from > the secondary server when it is deleted from the first, but rather to > archive the eldest data regularly in order to ensure the disks do not > fill. This, however, could not be considered a simple backup by most. > [Neil - you'd impress me by naming a tool that would do this 'ideal > solution' without the need for writing bespoke scripts...] > > Do we still disagree? :-) > > > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
