At 9:23 PM -0500 1/26/06, Julian Underwood wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:17 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Why do you want to use rsync for this? Are you doing something
> that you can not do using the -u option of tar or the -f option
> or zip? If so, you may want to look at standard backup software.
Yeah, you're right, I suppose the -u option of tar or the -f option of
zip will probably work just fine. The reason I want to backup "changes
only" is because I'm going be be doing nightly backups to a remote site
and as the bandwidth is going to be limited.
Additionally, as the file systems I'm going to be backing up to are SMB,
I wanted the data to be compressed and archived into one file so if
there are files with unsupported SMB filenames/lengths, they won't get
stripped when put onto the SMB volume. I'm going to be doing this for
some OS X servers as well.
Does this make sense? You think this is an OK way to go about doing an
"offsite" DR backup to a SMB volume?
When you use tar, the destination filesystem won't get a chance to see or
muck with any of the attributes of the backed-up files. Probably the only
likely problem is with file-size limits.
FWIW, tar can back up changes only, by keeping a list of files it has
backed up. See option --listed-incremental in "info tar", and the section
on Backups. I find info to be inscrutable, so "info tar", U, cursor down
to Backups, Enter.
If you compress the resulting files, you have more risk that a single error
can make all of a backup (or at least any following incrementals) useless.
I wonder if there is a tool to add redundancy, like .par files on usenet?
(Note that I have only read about this stuff; I have no actual experience.)