3 ms·
I use a similar approach, rsnapshot. What I worry about though is that it seems very wasteful when backing up a whole system. Each time the backup is happing I
by andreasvc 13y ago
I use a similar approach, rsnapshot. What I worry about though is that it seems very wasteful when backing up a whole system. Each time the backup is happing I hear the disk churning for half an hour, and I realize it's mostly recreating hard links to files that _haven't_ changed. So I wonder which backup method would require the least amount of disk activity.
- aryastark 13y agoNot sure. You might want to see if the --checksum option is enabled (or disabled?). Also, rsync man page says it does a checksum even without that option, to verify the file has been copied correctly. This may be what is causing a lot of I/O. I also forgot to mention that hashdeep/md5deep should probably be integrated into this sort of backup system (http://md5deep.sourceforge.net/ http://md5deep.sourceforge.net/). What hashdeep does is generates a list of checksums for a given backup. You would store this list with the backup, and then use hashdeep to "audit" the backup when you restore it, or to check if hardware is failing.
- unhammer 13y agoI just use plain rsync and then do a btrfs snapshot each time. Very fast and easy to set up. Probably just as easy with zfs if you prefer that. Of course I've got some setup around creating datestamped snapshots and keeping the N last ( http://sprunge.us/OKHb?bash http://sprunge.us/OKHb?bash for the bash function that does this), but in essence it's just $ rsync src trg/current $ btrfs subvolume snapshot -r trg/current trg/snapshot-$(date)