Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:04:43 -0400 From: Phil Eaton <philneaton95@gmail.com> To: "Brandon J. Wandersee" <brandon.wandersee@gmail.com> Cc: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@sohara.org>, freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Luca Ferrari <fluca1978@infinito.it> Subject: Re: rsync or git backups? Message-ID: <CAByiw%2BrFRdrg4y4xZuhC5cmapDzcD86_UcxxXXH1vG%2BFLZD51g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86k2i8kc1o.fsf@WorkBox.Home> References: <CAKoxK%2B4MuSFi7ctcAXVzZ61mXzCsnP-qsWxEOTor_T1SFgc-cg@mail.gmail.com> <20160601113332.5e250d300d770ab04e9c9cc2@sohara.org> <86k2i8kc1o.fsf@WorkBox.Home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is there a good article comparing rsnapshot and zfs-snapshots? On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Brandon J. Wandersee < brandon.wandersee@gmail.com> wrote: > > Steve O'Hara-Smith writes: > > > 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. > > If ZFS seems like overkill or too much hassle at the moment, you could > instead use sysutils/rsnapshot. It uses rsync to create snapshot-style, > rotating, de-duplicating, incremental backups. Verbose logging will > show you what files have changed since the last backup, so if you see a > file in the logs that you know you haven't changed in some time, it's > probably corrupt or has otherwise been compromised. Meanwhile, the > previous (good) versions will remain intact. > > -- > > :: Brandon J. Wandersee > :: brandon.wandersee@gmail.com > :: -------------------------------------------------- > :: 'The best design is as little design as possible.' > :: --- Dieter Rams ---------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Phil Eaton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAByiw%2BrFRdrg4y4xZuhC5cmapDzcD86_UcxxXXH1vG%2BFLZD51g>