Re: [rdiff-backup-users] logarithmic scheduling

[Rainer Zocholl]

address@hidden(Serge Wroclawski)  13.12.04 11:47


>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Alec Berryman wrote:

>> rdiff-backup has no concept of backup levels and cannot selectively
>> purge revisions.  If you want to emulate backup levels with
>> rdiff-backup, you're going to need a lot more space and use a
>> separate backup location for each level, which more or less negates
>> any benefit gained from using levels.

>Not really. The way the other programs I mentioned (dirvish and
>faubackup) handle it is they maintain a full copy of the data from the
>backup host. They then use hard links between files when no change is
>made. Changed files are made from scratch and then, if they don't
>changed, are linked to, so very little space is lost.

Sounds good.
"Ideally" something "inside" the filesystem (on inode level?)
would be the most efficient for this purpose.
But of cource that can't replace a "backup" as it only
protects the data against its worst enemies, the users, not
against a disk crash or roots "#rm -rf"
But there currently nothing visible in linux GPL world, or?

>Keeping specific versions then becomes trivial, 
>since every version is a full.

The disadvantage (and the advantage of rdif-backup) seems to be 
that you run into trouble with the "meta informations" like 
user IDs...

Another disadvantage (and the bigest advantage of rdiff-backup)
are the much more complicated setup.
"rdiff-backup" is really clear and easy to use.
Maybe i expect too much, as this might lead to more "complicate"
programm...
There is no free lunch.




Rainer---<=====>                         Vertraulich
             //
           //                              
         <=====>--------------ocholl, Kiel, Germany ------------