>rdiff-backup is very nice and user friendly, has many features, but it >should really be more fault tolerant.
agreed ! > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Xavier Bertou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 26.06.07 18:22:46 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Robustness to errors during backup > > I must agree with what Frederik said. rdiff-backup works just fine > when rsync works just fine, ie when you don't need a backup except for > stupid user deletion of files. When real bad things happen, > rdiff-backup doesn't handle any errors. File I/O error? The whole > backup fails, and I get zillions of errors on checking the > incrementals. I had at some time a very bad filesystem issue which > scared the kernel whenever I was trying to access a file, Linux just > killing the process. Of course this never had happened to me in the > last 10 years of Unix administration, but it happened a few months > ago, and again, no backup for a few days until I figured it out, and > no way to recover the incrementals. > Running rdiff-backup and having it fail because of an I/O error is > just not acceptable for a backup system. Of course, as long as > everything works fine, no problem. But for real life situations, the > ones you really need a backup, the total absence of error management > in rdiff-backup is a killer. > rdiff-backup is very nice and user friendly, has many features, but it > should really be more fault tolerant. > Cheers, > -- > Xavier > > On 6/26/07, Charles Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Frederik wrote: > > > Yes, it's normal that it fails in these cases. But it's not normal > > > that it is not able to recover from it without removing all > > > increments. For example, in case of corruption, it should ignore all > > > corrupted files, but it should not completely prevent creating new > > > backups or prevent restoring correct backups. Now it seems all > > > rdiff-backup operations are completely blocked until you manually > > > remove all increments, even of files which are not corrupted. This is > > > unacceptable for me. I had never such experiences with Bacula. > > > > > And I've never had such experiences with rdiff-backup -- and I have a > > very large number of servers using it on a nightly basis, and my backup > > server has run out of space (or had filesystem corruption) more than > > once. Are you sure that you're using it correctly? > > > > Does --check-destination-dir remove increments on you, or do you get > > some kind of error even after using --check-destination-dir? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > __________________________________________________________________________ Erweitern Sie FreeMail zu einem noch leistungsstärkeren E-Mail-Postfach! Mehr Infos unter http://produkte.web.de/club/?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
