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