On 04/10/16 01:45, Markus Grunwald wrote: > Hello Teemu, > >>> rsync, whilst an awesome piece of software, is not, on its own, a >>> backup system. >> >> Yes. With some scripting I think "rsync" with "--link-dest" is quite >> ideal for incremental backups. Unchanged files are created as hard >> links for the previous backup files. Every backup generation is just >> a normal and complete file system tree. > > I haven't followed this thread closely, but: > > To everybody who ponders using rsync for backup, I strongly suggest a > closer look at "dirvish". I'm using it to backup servers, laptops, > raspberries. It is not hard to configure, uses rsync with hard links > for "incremental" backups and keeps older versions of the backups.
That's what I use too. I use it with rsync over ssh as root, with the remote set up for root to run forced commands only, and in order to back up different trees independently, I use different ssh keys, each with its own forced command. That's a bit fiddly to set up, but seems to work ok. On 04/10/16 04:06, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > That's basically a less convenient rsnapshot, with all the caveats > (bad performance for large trees of files like mailboxes) Can you elaborate on the performance issues? I'm using dirvish for my maildirs (dovecot imap server), without noticeable problems. One change I do make is to enable 'dateext' in my logrotate config, so I don't end up with endless duplicates of my logfiles due to the names changing. My current challenge is to back up windows boxes - if I can get rsync to work (maybe DeltaCopy? Not sure if that will work how I want), I guess I'll be stuck doing a local rsync of a smbfs mount ... unless someone has a better suggestion. Richard
