Hi, few more comments:
- rdiff-backup-fs exists and we've got a copy in our GitHub group, but I have strong doubts that it's still working (looking for a volunteer to maintain BTW). - "Das Backup kann mittels --no-fsync massiv beschleunigt werden, wobei aber die zu schreibenden Daten nicht im RAM gepuffert werden, und darum bei Systemfehlern Datenverluste drohen." is not correct: the data _are_ buffered in RAM and hence can get lost (the "nicht" before "im RAM" is too much). To be technically very correct, the data is buffered in both case but, with --no-fsync, they are not immediately written back to disk. - one other option for "Zeitangaben" is the "xB" where x is the number of backups (0B being the most recent one), valid for --remove-older-than and for -r. Thansk, Eric On 06/03/2020 14:38, Adrian A. Baumann wrote: > Hi David, hi List, > > One thing I've noticed (and will change on the article later, I'm at > work...) is the statement, that a simple cp or rsync command is > sufficient to restore data. That is only the case if rdiff-backup is run > as root on the machine where the backup is stored... otherwise, the > files are there, but the owners, groups and permissions are different > from the original file system and stored in a file whose name I can't > remember off hand. > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > "David Croll" david.cr...@gmx.ch – 6 March 2020 13:43 >> Hi, >> >> >> as I'm the main author of the German Wikipedia article on rdiff-backup, >> I wanted to ask the Germish-speakers among us whether there's some >> important info missing, or how it could be improved in any way. >> >> The article is so extensive that it serves as a manual... >> >> de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rdiff-backup >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by >> E.F.A. Project, and is believed to be clean. >> >> > >
