Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Incremental, automated, remote, secure

[Grant]

>>> I was worried more about corruption *on the system being backed up*,
>>> which would not be detected for a long time, and then you have bad bits
>>> and want to find old backups.
>>
>> I see. As long as the rdiff-backup repository has not experienced
>> corruption independently, it should be able to recover your good data
>> by regressing through the bad recent files back to good earlier
>> ones. In fact this is a critical attribute of rdiff-backup and a
>> reason why it is so valuable.
>
> Fair enough, but you're then left with a single point of media failure.
> Hence my focus on multiple tape/disk back in time.   But I agree
> rdiff-backup does a tremendous amount of good.

How about pushing from the clients to the backup server, updating an
rdiff-backup repository of the pushed data on the server, then pulling
the rsynced data from the backup server to another system, and
updating an rdiff-backup repository of the pulled data on the other
system?  Would that eliminate the "single point of media failure"
problem?  A third set of backups in a third geographical location
could even be added.

With a redundant system like that, are offsite tape backups only
necessary if you periodically prune the rdiff-backup repository?

- Grant