On 07/02/2012, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:10 AM, David Walker <davidianwal...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Currently my backup regime is woeful. >> I have years worth of work on a Windows machine and some stuff >> scattered across OpenBSD machines. > > Uh-oh.
I know. I do have "hard" copies of some stuff (drives on shelves, etcetera) but I need to "cloud" it a little more and in the process get more methodical (instead of me forgetting). Fortunately I have no problem losing any of these machines and starting from scratch - I don't need drive images or anything, the data I care about is in a few specific areas. For instance the web server, I mainly care about the web sites of which I have multiple copies. I also have a copy of the Apache *conf and I probably have a copy of the /etc changes (rc.conf.local, pf.conf, so on). In a worst case I can re-install from scratch, adjust /etc and copy Apache *conf (or re-write them in half an hour) - all that's not practically rebuildable is the websites themselves. Anonymous <cripto () ecn ! org> wrote: > Solaris > ZFS I've heard of it (ZFS) but here's the thing, I struggle enough keeping up with Wndows and OpenBSD I don't want to put another system into the mix. > Being able to push data to the server manually from Windows and other > operating systems over the network. SSH or IPsec or similar is my idea > here. > Windows is a weakspot since it is so bad and has few standard tools. Especially open protocols and secure. You either accept and embrace Active Directory or install third party software or stay simple. Fortunately the Windows machine is internal so insecure is okay. > You > could probably script Filezilla to SSH what you want to the file server. Good idea. I'll probably end up either installing the Microsoft NFS client and scripting that or use the bog standard ftp client and script that. > You can script cron jobs to rsync from everywhere but on Windows. > NFS is better for sharing in real time. For backups rsync is hard to beat > but Windows is a weak point as mentioned by other posters. I'm looking at that now. Part of the reason I want to use base is so that the curve in getting a machine back up is easy. It's kind of what I was looking for but the overhead probably isn't worth it in my situation. Again thanks for all the replies (including off-list). Again I only want to backup data (which is really limited to the Windows machine) and configuration information (which is easily quantifiable and changes infrequently) - simple is probably best. The scenario is so simple that installing software is possibly creating more difficulty. I'll try scripting NFS maybe in combination with dump on the OpenBSD machines and see how that goes. Best wishes.
