On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Harry Putnam wrote:
I'm noticing a lengthy pause in an rsnapshot setup when the
directories being shuffled are over 3gb or so. Rsnapshot makes a copy
of the last backup to a new name then runs rsync against the original.
Making that copy can take awhile. And more so as it gets bigger.
Yikes! Double your disk space, just like that.
I wondered if the method bacula uses to do incremental backups is
faster by virtue of the methodology?
Different objective.
Disk-stored backups are vulnerable to hard drive failure, but more
importantly, they're vulnerable to deletion.
I can think of one very public demonstration of this when a New Zealand
ISP's webservers got penetrated by a 14 year old script kiddie. He not
only deleted the entire webserver tree, but also wiped out all the
disk-based backups.
End result: byebye personal and commercial websites hosted at that ISP.
150,000+ people were "very unhappy"(*). It got to be national news, with
the kiddie in question openly boasting in an interview that he was legally
untouchable.
(*) How many endusers do _you_ know who keep their own backups?
It's much harder (and slower) to do this to tape archives (or removable
disk artchives), especially if there are full backups stored offline.
AB
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
