Yes. We want an incremental approach. I just wanted to confirm whether s3cmd sync is a good approach for this?
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Marc Teichtahl <m...@teichtahl.com> wrote: > It is certainly one approach. > > Is the data ephemeral ? Does it change a lot ? If not you may want to > consider an incremental approach which would keep transfer size lower. > Also, if your holding the data for long periods and restore duration is not > an issue for you then you may want to consider glacier to keep your costs > down. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 18 Aug 2015, at 20:44, sumeet dembra <sumeetdem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We have to take daily server backup of around 70-80 GB to s3. > > Currently we are using duply for this. > > I tried to restore this. But it seems that duply restore is not working > for > > too large backups. > > > > So we were thinking of using s3cmd sync for backing local files to s3. > > Is this the right approach? > > > > Please let me know. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > - Regards, > > Sumeet > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > S3tools-general mailing list > > S3tools-general@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/s3tools-general > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > S3tools-general mailing list > S3tools-general@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/s3tools-general >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ S3tools-general mailing list S3tools-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/s3tools-general
