Re: [Duplicity-talk] 0.5.06 "manifests not equal because different volume numbers" ??

[Andrew Kohlsmith (lists)]

On January 24, 2009 04:08:55 am Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> I'm also fighting this. As it stands, before 0.5.0.6  (I think I used .3
> before that) you did not have to enter the passphrase when you used
> archivedir (after all, the data is stored locally where it does not need to
> be encrypted) which is why I used the feature in the first place (that and
> the fact that you can save a lot of BW on incremental backups).

This is exactly the reason why I am specifying the archive dir; I can't find 
the message now, but it was the method that was suggested to me when I 
started using Duplicity.

Here's a boring little story about why I'm doing things the way I am.

I have two computers in my home office, a laptop that gets dragged over hell's 
acres, and a colocated server on a high speed link that hosts my mail, web 
and other services.  I want to back up everything, and have the home 
fileserver and the colocated server carry a full set of backups for the 
entire schmozzle.

Each computer backs up locally, so that I can restore quickly if need be.  The 
home desktop machine rsyncs to the home fileserver.  The laptop rsyncs to 
either the home fileserver or the colocated machine (depending on where I 
am).  The home fileserver and colocated server exchange not only their own 
backups, but the entire system of backups.  Using this method, I have a two 
full copies of the incremental backups of all my important data in two 
geographically distant locations.

All of the backups are encrypted with a passwordless "backup" key, my personal 
key, and then, depending on what it is, either a "engineering" key or a "web 
services" key.  This way, people who need to restore data can get at it, to 
the level of their involvement.

Why duplicity?  Currently, I trust the locations of the backups.  That may not 
always be the case, so I am future proofing my backup strategy a little.  
Duplicity is simply awesome.  It's modular and thus fairly future-proof on 
its own.  I haven't found anything quite like it.

I'd like to get rid of the passwordless backup key at some point in the future 
as well; I am not sure why I would need such a thing, since I only need the 
public key to encrypt, and I am using the --archive-dir parameter to keep 
local unencrypted archive data.

-A.