[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Incremental, automated, remote, secure

From: Greg Troxel
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Incremental, automated, remote, secure
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:34:13 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/23.4 (berkeley-unix)

Grant <address@hidden> writes:

>> rdiff-backup preserves metadata in separate files so it doesn't need to
>> be root on the storage node.  If you can make that work, you can avoid
>> the rsync-to-root and use an rdiff-backup-specific non-root user.
> I've been informed on this list before that rdiff-backup has
> shortcomings when used to transfer data over the internet and it is
> better to use rsync over the internet and rdiff-backup locally on one
> side of the other.  I did find out that rsync --fake-super will store
> permissions and ownership in ACLs so that negates the need for remote
> root.

Well, if you have that much extra space, perhaps.  I do rdiff-backup
over the internet (as root on some box, to a non-root user on another
box) all the time, and haven't had trouble.

>> The scary risk is silent corruption and losing old backups. So you need
>> to keep periodic backups essentially forever.
> If the clients rsync data to the backup server and the server runs
> rdiff-backup locally on that rsynced data, and another system pulls
> that rsynced data from the server and maintains its own rdiff-backup
> repository, I think I should very likely be OK as far as corruption.
> Offsite backups would negate the corruption threat completely I think.
>  Does that sound right?

No, but this is really hard.  What if the backup disk has bad bits in
the block of some file?  What if the bits go bad on the machine being
backed up?  What if you then diligently copy those bits for 2 years, and
only keep 1 year of backups?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]