Cheers Jesse
On 25/06/2006, at 6:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello again,i have probably found an intersting solution for doing rdiff- backups via rsync with local mirror and without needing twice the space as usual.i`d like to discuss this solution and getting some feedback.if it`s a good and reliable solution, maybe it`s useful for others, too.the trick for saving the diskspace for rsync mirror is using the rsync option "--link-dest",whis is set to the rdiff-backup repositroy. --link-dest means, that rsync can store data space- efficiently by creating hardlinks. hardlinks are created whenever the rsynced file already is at another destination. so if the rdiff- backup directory contains exactly the same file which is being rsynced, then rsync can detect this and create a hardlink instead. files which changed or which are new are just rsynced as usual. for me this saves most of the space the rsync directory normally needs.this is my current backup script (i simplified it just to show the essential) :------------ cd /backup rm -rf hostA_rsync mkdir hostA_rsync rsync -az -H --link-dest=./hostA_rdiff hostA:/ ./hostA_rsync rdiff-backup --no-hard-links ./hostA_rsync ./hostA_rdiff ------------for my curiousity i needed to add --no-hard-links to rdiff-backup, otherwise rdiff-backup behaved strange with this.see the difference: before: du -s -k hostA* 30014511 hostA_rdiff 24219719 hostA_rsyncafter (made a second hostA_rdiff for testing - this is why it is smaller):du -s -k hostA* 24243554 hostA_rdiff 219719 hostA_rsyncsince i just have found this solution and didnŽt test in depth (maybe there are problems?) , i`d glad to hear some comments about this.regards roland ------------------------------------------Betreff: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup vs. rsync (d) at the remote endVon: "roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ins Adressbuch An: "Gerard van Dijnsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Datum: 24.06.06 16:03:31 hi!mhhh - still wondering here and spending thoughts over and over again...As far as I can see, there are a lot of reasons for using a server on the receiving side.yes - but why does this need rdiff-backup as server? rsync can run as aserver, too.One of them is storage of metadata, the most important however is keeping a history using 'reverse' diffs.mhh - but metadata is only stored on the backup-machine within the rdiff-backup repository.nothing on the client side. rdiff-backup just pulls the data and metadatafrom the backup client.whatever data/metadata rdiff-backup needs on the receiving side for storingthis - an rsync daemon on the remote site should be able to "deliver" this (imho - in theory).does somebody have a clue what's different "on the wire" between rsync andrdiff-backup ?itŽs gets a bigger problem for me, because i cannot install rdiff- backup onmany remote machines and so i need to create a local copy via rsync and rdiff-backup'ing it afterwards. this doubles storage and isn`t very optimal. ok, i know that i can convert a rsync mirror with "-b --force" into a rdiff-backup repository - but i`m not allowed to rsync afterwards.Actually, take a look at Duplicity and you will see a nice example of whatyou are looking for.thanks. maybe , fusessh is also worth looking at.... regards roland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard van Dijnsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:45 PMSubject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup vs. rsync(d) at the remoteendAs 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 mostimportant 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 workinginternally, i wonder a little bit about rdiff-backup being needed at theremote 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 withrsync(d) ? regards roland ps: actually, i even have one machine i need to rsync first to a local directoryand rdiff-backup from that, because i'm not allowed to install python onthat machine. so this takes twice the space on my backup machine.______________________________________________________________________ ____ Erweitern Sie FreeMail zu einem noch leistungsstärkeren E-Mail- Postfach!Mehr Infos unter http://freemail.web.de/home/landingpad/?mc=021131 _______________________________________________ rdiff-backup-users mailing list at [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-usersWiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/ RdiffBackupWiki
Jesse Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Virtual Artists Pty Ltd - 08 8223 2288 - http://www.va.com.au/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 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
