on Mon, Oct 21, 2002, Auke Jilderda (auke@jilderda.net) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 12:19:11PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >
> > Read the following page, then modify the associated script to your
> > system. It's geared toward tape. For drive-to-drive, I'd suggest rsync
> > rather than tar.
> Why?
And you _did_ read the rsync manpage?
Tar is useful for creating archives. If you're looking to create a
live, neartime mirror of a large filesystem, rsync is fast, minimizes
file transfers (useful whether this is over a network or just across the
local bus), and is particularly efficient at whole-system backups. What
it *doesn't* do is compress or version the results, which can be readily
accomodated with tar or other archive formats.
Note that the solution posed by such backups isn't "how do I recover
files from last year, or from total destruction, of natural or human
origin, of my data center", for which off-site, archived backups are the
_only_ real solution. Think World Trade Center, flood, fire,
earthquake, burglary, or disgruntled employee.
Rather, it's "administrative or user error, or localized hardware
failure fried a file or three, where can I get them quickly".
"Backup recovery" isn't a single process or answer, because it's not a
single question. Nearline backups are useful. They are *not* a
complete solution.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Reading is a right, not a feature
-- Kathryn Myronuk http://www.freesklyarov.org
Attachment:
pgpxxIFePPppy.pgp
Description: PGP signature