| 1 |
On 14/10/2020 14:58, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'd like to keep my "hot backup" machine more up-to-date. The most |
| 3 |
> important directory is my home directory. So far, I've been doing |
| 4 |
> occasional tarballs of my home directory and pushing them over. I |
| 5 |
> exclude some directories for "reasons". I'd like to switch to rsync |
| 6 |
> and run it more often. I've done the RTFM, but I'd more eyes to check |
| 7 |
> this out before the first run. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I haven't yet set up my system, but a couple of tweaks I'm planning to |
| 10 |
add ... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Either use btrfs, or an lvm partition, so you can take snapshots. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Do an in-place rsync (ie if part of a file has changed, it only writes |
| 15 |
the bit that's changed). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That way, you get a full backup for the price of an incremental. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The main change from your approach is that this will keep both an old |
| 20 |
and new copy of any file that has changed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The big change you could make from your approach is that you CAN delete |
| 23 |
files from the backup if they've been deleted on the live system, |
| 24 |
without losing them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Horses for courses, but if you are planning to keep your backup |
| 27 |
long-term, this could do a good job, provided you remember when you |
| 28 |
deleted that lost file from your live system :-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm planning to back up 6TB of live data onto a 12TB shingled disk, |
| 31 |
which shouldn't be a problem, and given that not much changes (apart |
| 32 |
from adding new photos), each backup will probably use a few gigs at |
| 33 |
most. Dunno how long the disk will last, but it should be ages. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Cheers, |
| 36 |
Wol |
Archives