| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm currently using it with a local server. If I decide to use the |
| 3 |
> backups on a remote server too, I'll probably stick to backing up to the |
| 4 |
> local server and then using rsync. It makes sense to have a copy of the |
| 5 |
> backup locally and only use the much slower option of restoring from a |
| 6 |
> remote host when absolutely necessary. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
There are at least two drawbacks to using rsync for mirroring the local |
| 9 |
backup to a remote host: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your remote |
| 12 |
backup, except if you are quick enough to disable the rsync step. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
- If you have disconnection during the rsync step (happened to me last |
| 15 |
night), your remote backup is temporarily corrupted. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
For the second problem, I'm toying with the idea of writing an |
| 18 |
rsync-like tool for mirroring one big file to a remote server, by first |
| 19 |
transmitting the changes and storing them separately on the remote |
| 20 |
machine, then performing the update on the big file after the connection |
| 21 |
has closed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- Remy |
Archives