First off, thanks much for your suggestions. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Kevin Korb <k...@sanitarium.net> wrote: > First, a new column for the old cp -al then rsync on top of it method > that --link-dest mostly replaced. It is slower since all the hard > links get made and then some get replaced or deleted but it does have > the opposite behavior in your new column. Changes to file metadata > propagate across all backups so that new files are not created for > simple permission or ownership changes. I didn't suggest this to the > original question because I assumed that someone using an rsync > wrapper would find it easier to run a manual chmod than to modify the > behavior of the wrapper.
Is this mostly of historical interest? I'm more interested in the new --link-by-hash option. Does this play a role in saving files with the same hashes but different ownerships or permissions bits? > Second, I would suggest some changes to your rsync column... > >> Backs up hardlinks? > There is no performance difference in using --hard-links. There never > has been. The difference is in RAM usage. But IMO if you have enough > hard links to make RAM usage an issue you also have enough of them to > make disk space an issue without this option. Adjusted. You're encouraged to look over my changes. >> Transmits data encrypted? > You are correct that rsyncd is not an encrypted transmission. The > authentication is in some hashed communication (I forget which but > dsniff can't reveal rsyncd passwords) but the content is transmitted > in the clear. I wouldn't bother mentioning rsh anymore. It shouldn't > even be available on a modern system. I added a brief note that rsh is deprecated. >> Permissions / ownership > The requirement for root access to the backup server is no longer > true. This was solved by --fake-super. When in effect it stores all > files with an unprivileged owner and generic permissions. The real > data is then stored in file extended attributes. Root access is > required only on the backup client (so it can read all files and > restore files to arbitrary ownerships). Thanks, I was not aware of --fake-super. > I would also mention that many of the other weaknesses can be handled > at the filesystem level with newer systems such as ZFS but that is > another discussion and of course it would apply to the other non-tape > based backup systems too. Nod. Thanks again. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
