As far as I can see, there are a lot of reasons for using a server on the receiving side. One of them is storage of metadata, the most important however is keeping a history using 'reverse' diffs. This might be implemented differently using rsync perhaps, I am not sure. Actually, take a look at Duplicity and you will see a nice example of what you are looking for. You only need ssh on the receiving side for this to work...
Gerard On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 13:24 +0200, roland wrote: > Hello ! > > while thinking about (and digging into) how rdiff-backup is working > internally, i wonder a little bit about rdiff-backup being needed at the > remote end. > > wouldn`t rsync(d) be sufficient for this (in theory) ? > > i`m asking this, because it's a lot easier and more "lightweight" to install > rsync(d) on the clients you need to backup. > > regarding "what's being transferred over the wire or being done at the > remote end" - can someone explain the difference between rdiff-backup and > rsync and give a comment about possible replacement of rdiff-backup with > rsync(d) ? > > regards > roland > > ps: > actually, i even have one machine i need to rsync first to a local directory > and rdiff-backup from that, because i'm not allowed to install python on > that machine. so this takes twice the space on my backup machine. > > > > _______________________________________________ > rdiff-backup-users mailing list at [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users > Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki _______________________________________________ rdiff-backup-users mailing list at [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
