1 |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:05 AM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > Duplicity uses librsync, so it backs up exactly the same data as rsync |
6 |
> > would, except instead of replicating entire files, it creates streams |
7 |
> > of data more like something like tar. So if you back up a million |
8 |
> > small files you might get out 1-3 big files. It can compress and |
9 |
> > encrypt the data as you wish. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Duplicity sounds interesting except that I already have the drive |
12 |
> encrypted. |
13 |
|
14 |
Then don't encrypt it? Both compression and encryption are optional. |
15 |
|
16 |
> The reason I mentioned being like rsync, I don't want to rebuild a backup |
17 |
> from scratch each time as that would be time consuming. |
18 |
|
19 |
Ah, you just want something that does incremental backups. Duplicity |
20 |
does, along with most decent solutions. |
21 |
|
22 |
I see lots of talk of NAS and zfs/btrfs and snapshots. IMO these are |
23 |
NOT really great solutions for backup. NAS can work of course but it |
24 |
is overkill for backup storage. |
25 |
|
26 |
NAS, zfs, btrfs, and snapshots are all great things to use with your |
27 |
live data. I use several of these myself. Your live data should be |
28 |
protected against bitrot with snapshots/etc. That has nothing to do |
29 |
with why you want backups. |
30 |
|
31 |
We're talking about the storage of backups. While you can store |
32 |
backups on any of these they don't really add much value. |
33 |
|
34 |
Also, you mentioned SMR, and I would definitely not combine SMR with |
35 |
most of those. SMR is perfect for backup. It just isn't perfect for |
36 |
backup using something like rsync that modifies files in place. You |
37 |
want something that only appends to backup files or creates new ones, |
38 |
which is basically how most backup software works except for stuff |
39 |
that works like rsync. |
40 |
|
41 |
The main issue I think you're going to have is having support for |
42 |
multi-volume backups if you need to be able to split a backup across |
43 |
drives. The only thing I've found on Linux that does this is bacula, |
44 |
and it is a royal pain that I'm embarrassed to even mention. If |
45 |
somebody knows of another backup solution that can write the output to |
46 |
disk (a filesystem, not /dev/rmt) and then pause to mount a new disk |
47 |
when one fills up, I'm all ears. For everything else I've tended to |
48 |
see people suggest using lvm/mdadm/whatever combine disks into a |
49 |
single block device so that the backup software doesn't see multiple |
50 |
disks. |
51 |
|
52 |
If you do want to go the route of combining your disks then since |
53 |
you're using SMR I'd probably pick something like lvm that doesn't do |
54 |
any striping/etc and just fills up one disk then moves to the next. |
55 |
Then use a simple filesystem (not btrfs/zfs) that just starts at one |
56 |
end and keeps adding. A log-based filesystem would probably be ideal |
57 |
but I'm not sure if any are decent. You do have the issue of what you |
58 |
do when you start to run out of space, unless you can create multiple |
59 |
sets of disks so that you can complete a new backup before destroying |
60 |
the old one. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
Rich |