On 5/12/2013 9:20 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
Without checking the internet, and before you listen to other peoples'
anecdotes or anything, I'd like to hear your gut feel, I want to know
what your natural instinct is. What do you think about the reliability
of the following tools?
If you have personal experience with them, obviously, that will shape
your perception. But even with no knowledge or experience with a
particular tool, I still want to know your instinct. Because your
preconceived notions influence decisions you make, give you bias in
terms of what tools you even think about using or researching.
Focus on reliability. ;-)
rsync
data - extremely reliable.
transport - depends upon versions.
One thing you need to do with rsync is to check your exit
codes.(actually, you should do this with everything, but, of course, if
you want reliable backups, you need to do it here too). different
protocol versions on the client and the server can foul things up abit.
We have almost 1PB of data transferred from a primary filesystem to a
backup virtual filesystem (on tape library) that is currently
synchronized in bits with rsync.
We use a filesystem feature to generate file lists for rsync and pass it
directly so that rsync doesn't have to scan the entire thing to be
backed up (on both sides). It's totally necessary over 100 mil files.
rsnapshot
Seemed reliable enough when we used it, but we've outgrown it.
tar
as long as you pay attention to file name lengths and things, it works
well. Standard OS tar may or may not support the full 255 characters. I
prefer the 'star' incarnation for speed and features. Gnu tar is second
choice.
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
