hey - nobody finding this useful, too ? i think this idea is something "new" - at least i didn`t find any reference on this list about someone doing it this way!
:) roland > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: 24.06.06 22:10:35 > An: [email protected] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Betreff: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup vs. rsync(d) at the remote end > 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_rsync > > after (made a second hostA_rdiff for testing - this is why it is smaller): > > du -s -k hostA* > > 24243554 hostA_rdiff > 219719 hostA_rsync > > > since 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 end > Von: "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 a > server, 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 metadata > from the backup client. > whatever data/metadata rdiff-backup needs on the receiving side for storing > this - 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 and > rdiff-backup ? > > itŽs gets a bigger problem for me, because i cannot install rdiff-backup on > many 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 what > >you 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 PM > Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup vs. rsync(d) at the remote > end > > > > 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. > >> > >> > > __________________________________________________________________________ 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-users Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki
