[cam.pm] Backups + next pubmeet, Re: Hangover over?

[David Cantrell]

Matthew Astley wrote:

> I've just set Dad's Linux box up with dirvish.  It's Perl </obperl>
> and rsync.  It keeps multiple copies of the source filesystems and
> uses hardlinks to economise on unchanged files.

rsnapshot is better, if only because I'll bribe you to use it with beer :-)

> He's only dumping to another disk in the machine, but with the magic
> of ssh authorisation key pairs you can send it...  somewhere else, if
> there is anywhere.
> 
> But not if rsync can't cope with the UFS+ filesystem?

You mean HFS+ (as does the author of the message whose URL I deleted). 
Plain ol' rsync works just fine provided that you don't care about those 
stupid fork things.  Thankfully, OS X avoids using them to a great 
extent - even Apple finally realised that they were a really dumb idea. 
  Certainly ignoring them has never done me any harm in my backups 
(admittedly I mostly use UFS, which eschews such stupidity).

There are hacked-up versions of rsync which add support for them.  And 
another reason to use rsnapshot - I have an email in my mailbox from one 
of the lovely users who has written up in detail how to use it to back 
up Macs, which I'll be adding to the docs soon.

> Not that Dirvish looks particularly easy to fit with encrypted storage
> that can't be peeked on the archiving side.  Sigh.

Consider Box Backup or duplicity if you need encryption:
   http://www.fluffy.co.uk/boxbackup/
   http://duplicity.nongnu.org/

Both have more features than dirvish or rsnapshot, but at the expense of 
making it a little more complicated to restore data.

-- 
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Anyone willing to give up a little fun for tolerance deserves neither