Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup vs. rsync(d) at the remote end

[Gerard van Dijnsen]

As far as I can see, there are a lot of reasons for using a server on
the receiving side. One of them is storage of metadata, the most
important however is keeping a history using 'reverse' diffs. This might
be implemented differently using rsync perhaps, I am not sure. Actually,
take a look at Duplicity and you will see a nice example of what you are
looking for. You only need ssh on the receiving side for this to work...

Gerard

On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 13:24 +0200, roland wrote:
> Hello !
> 
> while thinking about (and digging into) how rdiff-backup is working 
> internally, i wonder a little bit about rdiff-backup being needed at the 
> remote end.
> 
> wouldn`t rsync(d) be sufficient for this (in theory) ?
> 
> i`m asking this, because it's a lot easier and more "lightweight" to install 
> rsync(d) on the clients you need to backup.
> 
> regarding "what's being transferred over the wire or being done at the 
> remote end" - can someone explain the difference between rdiff-backup and 
> rsync and give a comment about possible replacement of rdiff-backup with 
> rsync(d) ?
> 
> regards
> roland
> 
> ps:
> actually, i even have one machine i need to rsync first to a local directory 
> and rdiff-backup from that, because i'm not allowed to install python on 
> that machine. so this takes twice the space on my backup machine. 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rdiff-backup-users mailing list at address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/rdiff-backup-users
> Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki