On 12/18/2010 12:18 PM, Mark Woodward wrote: > On 12/17/2010 08:22 AM, Chris O'Connell wrote: >> Hey Mark, >> >> IMO I think there are a few important features: >> 1. The backups must be mountable, allowing for file browsing and >> single file restoration. > May I ask about this requirement? Does it need to be mountable? You can > do Browse-able with single file restoration a number of ways, but > "mountable" implies a file system construct, and I'm not sure that is > feasible in a reasonable amount of time. > >> 2. The backup should NOT be file based, it should be image based. > That is actually at direct odds with the purpose of the backup. One of > the main purposes is to provide extensive information about the files > being backed up and why. I was originally going to question Chris on this, but an image backup to another physical drive does make sense, especally on reading his subsequent posts. I personally prefer a file based backup, but an image-based backup has a distinct advantage in case of a drive failure. One advantage of a file-by-file backup, such as rsnapshot is that you have an incremental backup, so if I somehow change or overwrite a file, I can go back to a previous version of that file. But, I can also use a source control system such as git. I think you need to look at the system you are backing up, and recovery from a failed drive. With Windows, I certainly would do image backups because of certain unmovable files and the registry.
-- Jerry Feldman <[email protected]> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
