| Jeff Abrahamson on Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:51:06 -0400 |
|
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:46:25PM -0400, mjd-lists-plug@plover.com wrote:
> [21 lines, 159 words, 1082 characters] Top characters: e_tinaol
>
>
> > Uh... Why not use tar?
>
> Several reasons. One is that I use the backup for several purposes.
> One is to have a recovery path in case of a catastrophe. Tar would
> work OK for that. But by far the more common use is for me to restore
> single files that I've accidentally deleted (for which tar is slow)
> and to compare the curent version of a file with the backup version
> (ditto). Finally, the tar format is very fragile; if a single byte
> gets corrupted in the wrong place, the entire file can become
> unreadable. Compressing the tar files would make the files even more
> fragile; a single bit corruption anywhere in the file would render the
> entire file useless.
>
> I'm using 'cp -a' now, but there are some things I don't like about
> it. The lack of incremental backup is one of them.
Have you looked at rsync incremental backup?
http://freshmeat.net/projects/ribs/?topic_id=137
http://freshmeat.net/releases/107189/
http://rustyparts.com/scripts.php
--
Jeff
Jeff Abrahamson <http://www.purple.com/jeff/>
GPG fingerprint: 1A1A BA95 D082 A558 A276 63C6 16BF 8C4C 0D1D AE4B
Attachment:
pgpvSHnYZvthA.pgp
|
|