Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Robustness to errors during backup

[devzero]

>rdiff-backup is very nice and user friendly, has many features, but it
>should really be more fault tolerant.

agreed !


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "Xavier Bertou" <address@hidden>
> Gesendet: 26.06.07 18:22:46
> An: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> Betreff: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Robustness to errors during backup


> 
> I must agree with what Frederik said. rdiff-backup works just fine
> when rsync works just fine, ie when you don't need a backup except for
> stupid user deletion of files. When real bad things happen,
> rdiff-backup doesn't handle any errors. File I/O error? The whole
> backup fails, and I get zillions of errors on checking the
> incrementals. I had at some time a very bad filesystem issue which
> scared the kernel whenever I was trying to access a file, Linux just
> killing the process. Of course this never had happened to me in the
> last 10 years of Unix administration, but it happened a few months
> ago, and again, no backup for a few days until I figured it out, and
> no way to recover the incrementals.
> Running rdiff-backup and having it fail because of an I/O error is
> just not acceptable for a backup system. Of course, as long as
> everything works fine, no problem. But for real life situations, the
> ones you really need a backup, the total absence of error management
> in rdiff-backup is a killer.
> rdiff-backup is very nice and user friendly, has many features, but it
> should really be more fault tolerant.
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Xavier
> 
> On 6/26/07, Charles Duffy <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Frederik wrote:
> > > Yes, it's normal that it fails in these cases. But it's not normal
> > > that it is not able to recover from it without removing all
> > > increments. For example, in case of corruption, it should ignore all
> > > corrupted files, but it should not completely prevent creating new
> > > backups or prevent restoring correct backups. Now it seems all
> > > rdiff-backup operations are completely blocked until you manually
> > > remove all increments, even of files which are not corrupted. This is
> > > unacceptable for me. I had never such experiences with Bacula.
> > >
> > And I've never had such experiences with rdiff-backup -- and I have a
> > very large number of servers using it on a nightly basis, and my backup
> > server has run out of space (or had filesystem corruption) more than
> > once. Are you sure that you're using it correctly?
> >
> > Does --check-destination-dir remove increments on you, or do you get
> > some kind of error even after using --check-destination-dir?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 


__________________________________________________________________________
Erweitern Sie FreeMail zu einem noch leistungsstärkeren E-Mail-Postfach!        
        
Mehr Infos unter http://produkte.web.de/club/?mc=021131