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 the > > backup locally and only use the much slower option of restoring from a > > remote host when absolutely necessary. > > 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.
That's why I use rdiff-backup. > > - If you have disconnection during the rsync step (happened to me last > night), your remote backup is temporarily corrupted. > For the second problem, I'm toying with the idea of writing an > rsync-like tool for mirroring one big file to a remote server, by first > transmitting the changes and storing them separately on the remote > machine, then performing the update on the big file after the connection > has closed. Shouldn't rsync do this on its own? There is an option --inplace described with: "This causes rsync not to create a new copy of the file and then move it into place. Instead rsync will overwrite the existing file, meaning that the rsync algorithm can't accomplish the full amount of network reduction it might be able to otherwise (since it does not yet try to sort data matches). One exception to this is if you combine the option with --backup, since rsync is smart enough to use the backup file as the basis file for the transfer. This option is useful for transfer of large files with block-based changes or appended data, and also on systems that are disk bound, not network bound. The option implies --partial (since an interrupted transfer does not delete the file), but conflicts with --partial-dir and --delay-updates. Prior to rsync 2.6.4 --inplace was also incompatible with --compare-dest and --link-dest. WARNING: The file's data will be in an inconsistent state during the transfer (and possibly afterward if the transfer gets interrupted), so you should not use this option to update files that are in use. Also note that rsync will be unable to update a file in-place that is not writable by the receiving user."
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
