rdiff-backup-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] snap-shots every 10 diffs...


From: Andrew Ferguson
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] snap-shots every 10 diffs...
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:05 -0400


On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Maarten Bezemer wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, address@hidden wrote:

So, just so we're clear - a summary of what I think you said...

The every-10-diff's snapshot is for META data only.

** The source files DO NOT get a snap-shot every 10 days.
** The RDiffs DO NOT get a snap-shot every 10 days.

I think you're (almost*) right, except that I don't understand what you define as source files and RDiffs. As far as the the backed-up files go, they are out of rdiff-backup's scope. The backup tree always stores the current version in full ("snapshot" if you insist). *almost: you don't need to save snap-shots every X days, only every X times a file changed. For most files, this is a notable difference.


(One might be able to work around this with overlapping rdiff slices,
data repair, partial data recovery etc...but RDiff-backup won't be
able to do a "regular" restore. This would require hand tweaking to
perform, and would involve a fair bit of luck, depending...)

A "regular" restore usually means the data from _now_, or some point in time fairly recent. In normal circumstances, I wouldn't want to have 200 increments of my files in the rdiff-backup tree. If you backup daily, AND your files change daily, restoring to a state of 200 days ago seems a bit pointless. (Same goes for hourly of course.) Could be nice for forensics, but then labour wouldn't be a problem, would it? ;-)

I understand that loosing (or having corrupted) increments screws up the entire idea of having incremental backups, although the way rdiff-backup works makes me a lot happier than other incremental backup tools (forward diffs versus reverse diffs). You could of course always backup the backup tree, just to be sure :-)


I agree with everything Maarten has said above.

Furthermore, I have remembered the second reason for the "every 10 increments, snapshot the metadata" policy. It also helps with speed -- if you want to restore from 15 increments ago, you don't need to apply quite so many reverse deltas to get to the metadata which drives the restore process.

Secondly, file integrity of the metadata is more important than for regular files because if one regular file is broken, that sucks, but if the metadata is broken, then that sucks for all files you wish to restore. That's an important part of the reason why the metadata files are stored as plain text (currently ASCII, Unicode in the very near future) -- there's no binary metadata format to break.



Andrew




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]