| 1 |
Hung Dang wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dirk Heinrichs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am Samstag, 7. März 2009 17:04:17 schrieb Grant: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> I'm backing up numerous large files on another machine on my local |
| 6 |
>>> network. I've only been using rsync, but it occured to me that I |
| 7 |
>>> might be able to save some time and space if I incorporate tar and |
| 8 |
>>> bzip2. How will rsync interact with those? If I turn the whole |
| 9 |
>>> backup into a big tar.bz2, would rsync need to redownload the whole |
| 10 |
>>> thing if I change one file? If so, maybe I should turn different |
| 11 |
>>> groups of files into tar.bz2 archives so rsync only needs to |
| 12 |
>>> redownload an archive if one of its files has changed? |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Another way, although a bit more work to setup, whould be to use a |
| 16 |
>> "Network block device". Unlike NFS, the server just exports the block |
| 17 |
>> device, everything else (mkfs, encryption) can be done on the client. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Bye... |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Dirk |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> rsync will download only if source and destination files are different. |
| 24 |
> From my experiences using rar is faster and save more space than bz2. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Hung |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
But rar is a proprietary archival format, I'd much sooner go with a tar, |
| 29 |
compressed with bzip2 or lzma. If the biggest concern is just getting it |
| 30 |
done quickly, gzip it, but for the love of all things free, not rar, I say! |
Archives