| 1 |
On Tue 16 August 2011 06:39:39 Bill Longman did opine thusly: |
| 2 |
> On 08/15/2011 09:58 PM, Grant wrote: |
| 3 |
> > the backup server. If I push, I have to allow read/write access |
| 4 |
> > of my backups via SSH keys. If I pull, I have to enable root |
| 5 |
> > logins on each system to be backed-up, allow root read access |
| 6 |
> > of each system via SSH |
| 7 |
> +1 push. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> But my question is, "Why do you assert that you must allow root |
| 10 |
> access?" Surely each machine can do its own backups and plop them |
| 11 |
> into a directory accessible to a "backup" login. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
More often than not that results in you needing twice as much disk |
| 14 |
space as what you actually use, few people are willing to sacrifice |
| 15 |
that much. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Consider: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
/usr 8G |
| 20 |
/home 100G+ |
| 21 |
everything else - much less space |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That's not unusual for people's personal machines. At some point you |
| 24 |
will need 100G free for a backup copy. Less if you pipe tar to gzip, |
| 25 |
but the actual amount is always unknown till you do it. The only |
| 26 |
amount certain to work is 100G if the data is binary with no benefit |
| 27 |
from compression. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Push backups are indeed the better route for the OP with a simple |
| 30 |
setup. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives