1 |
On 26 February 2010 22:23, Ward Poelmans <wpoely86@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 18:50, daid kahl <daidxor@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> As a simple idea, cron task starts rsnapshot configured however. When |
5 |
>> this is done, backup is tarballed, and tarball is given as like, say, |
6 |
>> 440 permissions, where users are in some useful 'backup' group, then |
7 |
>> while tarball can be read to be passed across server, if tarball is |
8 |
>> extracted, user has no more privs then they have on the system anyway |
9 |
>> (I'm not saying chmod -R). Then local tarball can be removed or |
10 |
>> whatever. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It's not a bad idea, but you need enough free space on the client to |
13 |
> backup the entire system (which for me is not the case). Secondly, |
14 |
> every backup you do is a full backup as rsnapshot needs to access a |
15 |
> backup todo a incremental backup. You could mess around with something |
16 |
> like sshfs but's it's not great either. A straight rsync between |
17 |
> client and server could do it but it would suprise me if this doesn't |
18 |
> already exist in some form. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Regards, |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Ward |
23 |
> |
24 |
Thanks for the feedback. For now, as you may easily guess, this case |
25 |
does not apply to me personally since I mostly just admin my own |
26 |
personal machine. But I think you raise very relevant difficulties |
27 |
with my suggestion for a practical administrative case for multiple |
28 |
machines. |
29 |
|
30 |
~daid |