Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:33:32 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: Luca Ferrari <fluca1978@infinito.it> Cc: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: rsync or git backups? Message-ID: <20160601113332.5e250d300d770ab04e9c9cc2@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <CAKoxK%2B4MuSFi7ctcAXVzZ61mXzCsnP-qsWxEOTor_T1SFgc-cg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKoxK%2B4MuSFi7ctcAXVzZ61mXzCsnP-qsWxEOTor_T1SFgc-cg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:35:06 +0200 Luca Ferrari <fluca1978@infinito.it> wrote: > Hi all, > so far I'm using rsync to keep in sync a couple of removable media > (well, up to four) where one is the "master" and the others are a > cascade backups (meaning they are set at different time). > So far so good. > One problem is that I tend to change things in the master, e.g., bulk > file renaming or moving, so when I replicate it on the backups I have > to force the deletion of no more existing content. > This approach, however, relies on the fact that the master is good. My > fear is that if the master corrupts some file, I could possibly loss > them if they have also been moved since I will no more be able to > recognize them on the slaves. > > So I would like to have some feature like git (or fossil) for hash > handling, but since I'm talking about 290+ GB of binaries I'm not sure > this approach could work. > > Any suggestion? Use ZFS with snapshots (the zfs-periodic package is good for this) and replace the rsync with send/receive, ZFS will protect you from hardware silent corruption (provided you allow some redundancy - use copies on pools with no redundancy) while the snapshots will protect you from mistakes. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160601113332.5e250d300d770ab04e9c9cc2>