Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:56:50 -0400 From: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@msu.edu> To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcw@speakeasy.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rsync over nfs or rsync protocol Message-ID: <20110926135650.GB17207@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <4E7F526E.2020507@speakeasy.net> References: <4E7CF443.2000701@speakeasy.net> <20110923211140.GB96837@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <4E7F526E.2020507@speakeasy.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Jason C. Wells wrote: > On 09/23/11 14:11, Jerry McAllister wrote: > >Why would you interject NFS in the middle of it? ////jerry > There would be no middle. I would run rsyncd or nfsd, but not both. Ah, I get it. In that case, I think rsync is probably more useful than NFS because it can check and only copy modified files. Alternatively, if you are doing backups to recover from system failures - such as a disk crash, you would probably prefer dump(8)/restore(8) They can write to a file on the other machine, can do "change dumps" and they preserve all the needed UNIX attributes. I actually do a dump piped to a restore on another disk as a convenient backup to handle my all too frequent cases of fumble fingers and sleep deprived bad thinking where I need to quickly get back a file I mangled, deleted or need to start over on. Restore can easily pull single files or directory trees from a dump file as well. But having it already pre-restored makes it easier -- and only doubles my disk use - disk is cheap isn't it. ////jerry > > Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110926135650.GB17207>