Neil Bothwick wrote:
- If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your remote
backup, except if you are quick enough to disable the rsync step.
That's a potential problem with any form of backup, local or remote. The
truly paranoid would use two different backup methods on two physica
- If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your remote
backup, except if you are quick enough to disable the rsync step.
That's why I use rdiff-backup.
Yes, me too, but *inside* the encrypted container.
- If you have disconnection during the rsync step (happened to me last
nigh
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:06:39 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
> > rdiff-backup isn't really suitable for offsite backups because it
> > uses no compression, making the space and bandwidth requirements
> > double those of other methods. It also uses no encryption.
>
> It uses compression (gzip), bu
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 09:54 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:44:05 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
>
> > > - If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your remote
> > > backup, except if you are quick enough to disable the rsync step.
> >
> > That's why I use rdif
on Friday 04/18/2008 Neil Bothwick([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:34:49 +0200, Remy Blank wrote:
>
> > There are at least two drawbacks to using rsync for mirroring the local
> > backup to a remote host:
> >
> > - If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:44:05 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
> > - If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your remote
> > backup, except if you are quick enough to disable the rsync step.
>
> That's why I use rdiff-backup.
rdiff-backup isn't really suitable for offsite backups bec
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 09:34 +0200, Remy Blank wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > I'm currently using it with a local server. If I decide to use the
> > backups on a remote server too, I'll probably stick to backing up to the
> > local server and then using rsync. It makes sense to have a copy of th
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:34:49 +0200, Remy Blank wrote:
> There are at least two drawbacks to using rsync for mirroring the local
> backup to a remote host:
>
> - If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your remote
> backup, except if you are quick enough to disable the rsync step.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
I'm currently using it with a local server. If I decide to use the
backups on a remote server too, I'll probably stick to backing up to the
local server and then using rsync. It makes sense to have a copy of the
backup locally and only use the much slower option of restoring
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:57:47 +0200, Remy Blank wrote:
> > I'm now testing app-backup/boxbackup,
> > which seems good so far.
>
> Please report your findings on the list! I'm not all too happy about my
> current solution (rdiff-backup locally to a filesystem over dmcrypt,
> loopback-mounted fr
Neil Bothwick wrote:
I'm now testing app-backup/boxbackup,
which seems good so far.
Please report your findings on the list! I'm not all too happy about my
current solution (rdiff-backup locally to a filesystem over dmcrypt,
loopback-mounted from a file, followed by an rsync over ssh to a rem
11 matches
Mail list logo
