Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:30:27 -0500 From: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@goldmark.org> To: vogelke+unix@pobox.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What should be backed up? Message-ID: <97E0413B-E738-4731-BBEC-5A044E8C3D06@goldmark.org> In-Reply-To: <20090824001441.93892B7C4@kev.msw.wpafb.af.mil> References: <20090824001441.93892B7C4@kev.msw.wpafb.af.mil>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 23, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Karl Vogel wrote: > Touching a timestamp file and backing up stuff newer than that works > fine for things you modify, but I frequently copy over source > tarballs > and the timestamp method won't work for those. This is one of the several reasons that I use rsync (via rsnapshot). At each increment, it backs up the minimum that is need. With the cost of having a complete backup which duplicates what you would find in a reinstall, you have a complete system. Suppose you accidently trash something from the original installation. It may be easier to restore it from your backups than going to original installation media. Disk space is cheap, so having a complete back-up (under most circumstances) makes sense. With -- link-dest you can maintain many snapshots with the minimal of copying, transmitting, and writing files. Of course everyone's back up needs are different, and what works for me isn't necessarily the best for others. But if you haven't looked at rsnapshot, I'd recommend that you do before writing your own scripts. Even if you don't use rsnapshot itself, look at what it does with rsync. Cheers, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?97E0413B-E738-4731-BBEC-5A044E8C3D06>