A quick google turned up the following from
http://www.backupcentral.com/components/com_mambowiki/index.php/Rdiff-backup:
Advantages
Here are some advantages of using rdiff-backup instead of an rsync script
or rsnapshot.
Backup size
Because rdiff-backup does not store complete copies of older files,
but only the compressed differences between older and current files,
backups generally consume less disk space.
Easier-to-use
Unlike rsync, rdiff-backup was written originally for backups. It has
sensible defaults (so no need for the -av -delete -e ssh options) and
fewer quirks (for instance, no distinction between <destination>,
<destination>/, and <destination>/.).
Preserves all information
With rsync, all information is stored in the filesystem itself. If you
log into your backup repository as a non-root user (generally a good
idea), the rsync method forgets who owns all your files! rdiff-backup
keeps a copy of all metadata in a separate file, so no information is
lost, even if you arent root or if you back up to a different kind of
filesystem.
[edit]
Handy backup features
rdiff-backup has several miscellaneous handy features. For example, it
keeps detailed logs on what is changing and has commands to process those
logs so that you know which files are using up your space and time. Also,
newer versions keep SHA-1 checksums of all files so you can verify the
integrity of backups. Some rsync scripts have similar featurescheck their
documentation.
[edit]
Disadvantages
Lets be honest: rdiff-backup has some disadvantages too:
Speed
rdiff-backup consumes more CPU than rsync and is therefore slower than
most rsync scripts. This difference is often not noticeable when the
bottleneck is the network or a disk drive but can be significant for
local backups.
Transparency
With rsync scripts, all past backups appear as copies and are thus
easy to verify, restore, and delete. With rdiff-backup, only the
current backup appears as a true copy. (Earlier backups are stored as
compressed deltas.)
Requirements
rdiff-backup is written in Python and requires the librsync library.
Unless you use a distribution that includes rdiff-backup (most of them
include it), installation could entail downloading and installing
other files.
--
Mike Marseglia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marseglia.org
On Mon, April 28, 2008 12:02 pm, Richard Chapman wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am planning a "holistic" backup system for a mixed windows/linux
> network. The system should provide for both disaster recovery and
> accidental deletion protection.
>
> It appears to me that both rdiff-backup and rsnapshot would do a good
> job for me. Could anyone provide their thoughts on the relative
> strengths and weaknesses of the two tools.
>
> I have posted a similar request on the rsnapshot list - and have had
> some response suggesting that rdiff-backup will need less storage - but
> may be slower with a lot of changing data. Also - that recovering
> specific files at specific ages may be easier with rsnapshot.
>
> Looking at the rdiff-backup documentation - it appears to me that
> rdiff-backup stores the change data indefinitely. If this is so - and
> there is no way to "delete" old data - I assume the historical change
> data will grow indefinitely. Is this the case - or have I missed
> something?
>
> I would value the opinions of users of this group also.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rdiff-backup-users mailing list at rdiff-backup-users@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users
> Wiki URL:
> http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
>
_______________________________________________
rdiff-backup-users mailing list at rdiff-backup-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users
Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
