Greg Freemyer wrote:
Yes I can see the important of that, but running rdiff-backup direct to an external server which is using encFS (running 'rdiff-backup --server' on the server rather than using sshFS) would not incur extra bandwidth overhead (compared to using rsync as you do). I accept however that it is inherently insecure, which is a killer. And running it through sshFS (as in the wiki) is secure but I would expect it to increase the traffic dramatically.On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Dominic <[email protected]> wrote:Greg Freemyer wrote:I use rdiff-backup to a local encfs directory. Then I do a rsync of the encrypted version of the encfs directory to a third party location. ... That sounds clever. But I don't understand why it is not secure to use encfs directly on the third party remote server (assuming that it is available of course)Ignoring security, there is also a bandwidth issue... So I treat that as a true disaster recovery backup (fire / natural disaster / etc.). Your solution seems perfect to me though: primary backup onsite and secure secondary backup offsite. Dominic |
_______________________________________________ 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
