* Jon Dowland <[email protected]> [090728 06:42]: > From my experience, I would discount anything which relies > on hard link trees. That means a lot of rsync-based > solutions, including rsnapshot. Apart from not being a 1:1 > backup (you lose hard links!), the filesystem metadata > storage explodes for any reasonable sized filesystem and > any reasonable frequency of backup. I currently use > rdiff-snapshot.
I've been trying to decide between dirvish & rdiff-backup. I read something [1] arguing in favor of dirvish, citing it's advantage of having images that are complete file systems. But dirvish does use hard links, so the issue of such a backup not being exactly 1:1 gives me some pause. I'm wondering if the archfs [2] you mentioned helps address the "complete file system" issue. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00758.html [2] http://code.google.com/p/archfs/ John -- John Magolske http://B79.net/contact -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
