Re: Recommendation: Backup system
On 04/10/16 01:45, Markus Grunwald wrote:
> Hello Teemu,
>
>>> rsync, whilst an awesome piece of software, is not, on its own, a
>>> backup system.
>>
>> Yes. With some scripting I think "rsync" with "--link-dest" is quite
>> ideal for incremental backups. Unchanged files are created as hard
>> links for the previous backup files. Every backup generation is just
>> a normal and complete file system tree.
>
> I haven't followed this thread closely, but:
>
> To everybody who ponders using rsync for backup, I strongly suggest a
> closer look at "dirvish". I'm using it to backup servers, laptops,
> raspberries. It is not hard to configure, uses rsync with hard links
> for "incremental" backups and keeps older versions of the backups.
That's what I use too. I use it with rsync over ssh as root, with the
remote set up for root to run forced commands only, and in order to back
up different trees independently, I use different ssh keys, each with
its own forced command. That's a bit fiddly to set up, but seems to work ok.
On 04/10/16 04:06, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> That's basically a less convenient rsnapshot, with all the caveats
> (bad performance for large trees of files like mailboxes)
Can you elaborate on the performance issues? I'm using dirvish for my
maildirs (dovecot imap server), without noticeable problems.
One change I do make is to enable 'dateext' in my logrotate config, so I
don't end up with endless duplicates of my logfiles due to the names
changing.
My current challenge is to back up windows boxes - if I can get rsync to
work (maybe DeltaCopy? Not sure if that will work how I want), I guess
I'll be stuck doing a local rsync of a smbfs mount ... unless someone
has a better suggestion.
Richard
Reply to: