[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] How to use duplicity for local backup
From: |
edgar . soldin |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] How to use duplicity for local backup |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:18:04 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
hi MRob,
On 24.04.2020 19:50, MRob via Duplicity-talk wrote:
> Hello, I want to ask opinion about backup tactic please.
>
> I found a backup system that using only rsync to a local server. A few
> scripts run on the server that create tree of historical directrories that
> are filled with hard links to the main rsync target. I never saw this but my
> understand of the benefit:
> * saving space for historical backups because they only use inodes
> * simple scheme to use rsync and ln
off-topic but interestingly there is a popular backup strategy like that.
on the backend (where the backups are stored)
- create mirror/snapshot of the last backup folder (eg. using file systems like
btrfs, zfs or using 'rsync --link-dest=...' below)
on the backend or locally
- run rsync and synchronize the new backend folder
repeat
using cow(copy-on-write) filesystem you can even have rsync not to create a new
file but just replace chunks of big ones, saving even more space.
> * But am I correct, to understand if a file *change* then the historical data
> is lost so its a shortcoming of the scheme.
not necessarily as rsync by default creates a new file if it detected changes
in the old one, hence your old hardlinks won't be touched in that case
> Is this scheme popular?
relatively. i for one use it in some places.
>Is it useful in comparison to local-rsync variation of duplicity?
not comparable to what duplicity does. duplicity creates final volumes of
backup data that are merely dumped on some backend.
>For example, lower CPU needed because not creating archive files and
>encrypting them.
as said. completely different approach. you need eg. a backend that you trust
your unencrypted data with.
>Can duplicity have gpg turn off when it is not necessary?
yes. but then you may as well check out thy myriad of backup solutions out
there. one might be a better fit for you.
>I prefer duplicity to replace the scheme but have limited storage and limited
>CPU cycles.
why, if it is working now?
> Could you guide to help make duplicity a comparable option in that context?
> Thank you.
again, not comparable sorry.
have fun ..ede/duply.net