Re: xfs backup system vs rsynce
On 23/01/12 14:27, Nicolas Bercher wrote: Take care with --remove-older-than option, as the man page says: "Note that snapshots of deleted files are covered by this operation. Thus if you deleted a file two weeks ago, backed up immediately after‐ wards, and then ran rdiff-backup with --remove-older-than 10D today, no trace of that file would remain." This is an inevitable consequence of any backup system that backs up to somewhere with a limited amount of space. The alternative is to only grow in size. You can loose valuable old files. So, one thing I really miss in rdiff-backup is an option to remove backups older than AND newer than . Thus, I could reduce daily backups to weekly, etc. But still, I can loose files. In a near future, I think I'll switch to venti(1) and/or vbackup(8) of "Plan 9 port": Take a look at bup in Debian, which doesn't remove old increments, but stores the backup files in a git-formatted archive (so chunked and de-duplicated, with sliding window compression and other such magic) -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f1e8317.6090...@debian.org
Re: xfs backup system vs rsynce
Nicolas why are you just now replying to a post that is *10 months* old? -- Stan On 1/23/2012 8:27 AM, Nicolas Bercher wrote: > Dan a écrit : >> I use rdiff-backup it uses the rsync alorythm but it keeps the >> increments so you can recover deleted files or the old form of file. I >> makes weekly backups and delete files in the backup files which are >> older than 3 months. > > Take care with --remove-older-than option, as the man page says: > > "Note that snapshots of deleted files are covered by this operation. > Thus if you deleted a file two weeks ago, backed up immediately after‐ > wards, and then ran rdiff-backup with --remove-older-than 10D today, no > trace of that file would remain." > > You can loose valuable old files. So, one thing I really miss in > rdiff-backup is an option to remove backups older than > AND newer than . Thus, I could reduce daily > backups to weekly, etc. But still, I can loose files. > > In a near future, I think I'll switch to venti(1) and/or vbackup(8) of > "Plan 9 port": > > http://swtch.com/plan9port/ > > Venti is "Write Once Read Many" archival storage server used to store > files hierarchy for example. On the other hand, Vbackup is used to > store efficiently entire logical volumes from *nix to a Venti server. > > But this involves to know a little about Plan 9 concepts, etc. > > Nicolas > > -- > http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man1/venti.html > http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man8/venti.html > http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man8/vbackup.html > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f1dff0b.8080...@hardwarefreak.com
Re: xfs backup system vs rsynce
Dan a écrit : I use rdiff-backup it uses the rsync alorythm but it keeps the increments so you can recover deleted files or the old form of file. I makes weekly backups and delete files in the backup files which are older than 3 months. Take care with --remove-older-than option, as the man page says: "Note that snapshots of deleted files are covered by this operation. Thus if you deleted a file two weeks ago, backed up immediately after‐ wards, and then ran rdiff-backup with --remove-older-than 10D today, no trace of that file would remain." You can loose valuable old files. So, one thing I really miss in rdiff-backup is an option to remove backups older than AND newer than . Thus, I could reduce daily backups to weekly, etc. But still, I can loose files. In a near future, I think I'll switch to venti(1) and/or vbackup(8) of "Plan 9 port": http://swtch.com/plan9port/ Venti is "Write Once Read Many" archival storage server used to store files hierarchy for example. On the other hand, Vbackup is used to store efficiently entire logical volumes from *nix to a Venti server. But this involves to know a little about Plan 9 concepts, etc. Nicolas -- http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man1/venti.html http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man8/venti.html http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man8/vbackup.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f1d6e5d.6020...@yahoo.fr
Re: xfs backup system vs rsynce
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:28 PM, prad wrote: > xfsdump and xfsrestore seem to be a good combo and i recall using dump > and restore on freebsd. > > the past year we've been using rsync which is very convenient. > > do people have any thoughts regarding these as far as creating backups? > > my feelings are slanted towards using xfs tools since i'm using xfs, > though i would appreciate hearing what people have to say before leaving > rsync behind (though i may use it locally for quick stuff). I use rdiff-backup it uses the rsync alorythm but it keeps the increments so you can recover deleted files or the old form of file. I makes weekly backups and delete files in the backup files which are older than 3 months. Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktikhcjo-uzlkw6ukafu3vnsrva7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: xfs backup system vs rsynce
On 05/30/11 at 04:28pm, prad wrote: > xfsdump and xfsrestore seem to be a good combo and i recall using dump > and restore on freebsd. > > the past year we've been using rsync which is very convenient. > > do people have any thoughts regarding these as far as creating backups? > > my feelings are slanted towards using xfs tools since i'm using xfs, > though i would appreciate hearing what people have to say before leaving > rsync behind (though i may use it locally for quick stuff). > rsync benefits: file-based backups mean you can only back up files which have changed or newly created, sometimes known as an 'incremental' type backup, saving on bandwidth (for netbackups) and storage space directly network aware, making for easier network backups and file transfers filesystem agnostic, meaning a change in your filesystem (or possibly even OS) type doesn't necessitate any change in backup method or script backup method can be made as a directory or tarball, leading to easier single-file restoration vs dump/clone dump/dd/snapshot/clone benefits: snapshot-like backups ensure file consistency in all things, including access/modification times, extended acls, permissions and anything filesystem-specific which is either unsupported by rsync or you may neglect/overlook in your solution.A (dd/clone specific) easier for restoring to bare metal for full-OS restores (snapshot specific) easier for versioning/restores -- Liam signature.asc Description: Digital signature
xfs backup system vs rsynce
xfsdump and xfsrestore seem to be a good combo and i recall using dump and restore on freebsd. the past year we've been using rsync which is very convenient. do people have any thoughts regarding these as far as creating backups? my feelings are slanted towards using xfs tools since i'm using xfs, though i would appreciate hearing what people have to say before leaving rsync behind (though i may use it locally for quick stuff). -- in friendship, prad -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87boyju5st@psinom.home
