On 3/26/13 6:42 AM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Le lundi 25 mars 2013 19:35:12, Daniel Farina a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>
> <ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> >> Back when we used CVS for quite a few years I kept 7 day rolling
> >> snapshots of the CVS repo, against just such a difficulty as this. But
> >> we seem to be much better organized with infrastructure these days so I
> >> haven't done that for a long time.
> >
> > well there is always room for improvement(and for learning from others)
> > - but I agree that this proposal seems way overkill. If people think we
> > should keep online "delayed" mirrors we certainly have the resources to
> > do that on our own if we want though...
>
> What about rdiff-backup? I've set it up for personal use years ago
> (via the handy open source bash script backupninja) years ago and it
> has a pretty nice no-frills point-in-time, self-expiring, file-based
> automatic backup program that works well with file synchronization
> like rsync (I rdiff-backup to one disk and rsync the entire
> rsync-backup output to another disk). I've enjoyed using it quite a
> bit during my own personal-computer emergencies and thought the
> maintenance required from me has been zero, and I have used it from
> time to time to restore, proving it even works. Hardlinks can be used
> to tag versions of a file-directory tree recursively relatively
> compactly.
>
> It won't be as compact as a git-aware solution (since git tends to to
> rewrite entire files, which will confuse file-based incremental
> differential backup), but the amount of data we are talking about is
> pretty small, and as far as a lowest-common-denominator tradeoff for
> use in emergencies, I have to give it a lot of praise. The main
> advantage it has here is it implements point-in-time recovery
> operations that easy to use and actually seem to work. That said,
> I've mostly done targeted recoveries rather than trying to recover
> entire trees.
I have the same set up, and same feedback.
I had the same setup, but got tired of how rdiff-backup behaved when a backup
was interrupted (very lengthy cleanup process). Since then I've switched to an
rsync setup that does essentially the same thing as rdiff-backup (uses
hardlinks between multiple copies).
The only downside I'm aware of is that my rsync backups aren't guaranteed to be
"consistent" (for however consistent a backup of an active FS would be...).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
