On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:23:19 +0200 Sebastian Günther <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Joerg Schilling ([email protected]) [30.04.09 12:31]: > > What rsync does can also be done by star by running something like: > > ... > > 10 lines where 1 is sufficient? Not so userfriendly, and what is the > benefit? Most lines are used to freeze ufs as a snapshot, so they should be there with rsync, as well. Obvious benefit of a snapshot is consistency, and, luckily for me, no users are involved in this process ;) > If space is not a problem the main benefit of rsync is that you have > your backup simply on a filesystem, that you can mount anywhere you want > it. And the plus is no programm needed to restore the data other than > cp... Sync is indeed a great idea, which should save tons of time and resources, but some compression should still be necessary, even on backup server, since most content should occupy 2x-10x space when unpacked. In fact, compressed write-enabled FS with snapshot capability plus rsync is the closest thing to ideal backup as I can think of. And in fact, it's called ZFS! ;) Another sad fact is that the server is shared with a few other people, so I can't just roll freebsd7 or solaris onto it, but I guess fuse-zfs and compressed fuse filesystems should be worth a try indeed. Besides, I've got some strange idea that to make squashfs you don't really need its support in kernel... All in all, more things to test out and think over, thanks. -- Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
