<quote who="Gonzalo Servat">
> I'm currently testing out backing up data to a removeable medium by using
> rsync & hard links (http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots was
> good reading material)
Ahr, I've been using a very similar system on my backup products for a few
months now; the author explains how it works very well.
> I just realised that if a file corrupts itself, unless someone told me
> about it before an rsync took place so I can restore it, it would corrupt
> the entire tree of hard links to the file, right?
Not if you're doing rolling snapshots. Then you can just fall back to the
latest uncorrupted snapshot (as you would with any incremental backup
system).
I don't quite get what you mean by the 'entire tree of hard links' - if just
one file is corrupted and backed up, then just that one file will be
corrupted.
> Can anyone think of a work around to this problem? (other than backing up
> the backup server to another box :))
Note that as handy-dandy and clever this solution is, it is *NOT* a
replacement for responsible care with off-site backups (physical or
network). If you put a bullet in the disk, you are still stuffed.
- Jeff
--
<boc> i wish i could write good flames
<jwz> boc: you can't win if you don't play
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
