Re: [PLUG] RAID Backup Server

[Edmund Goppelt <webmaster@hallwatch.org>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 10:10:53AM -0500, bergman@merctech.com wrote:
> >From my point of view, backup-to-disk only barely qualifies as a "backup
> solution". It offers virtually no archive capability, it's very difficult to
> send the data off-site, and has a high risk of failure, compared to
> technologies like tape. Of course, it's cheap & easy.

Wow.  I have a rather different viewpoint.  Of all the backup
solutions I've tried over the years, I like disk the best.  In my
experience, disk backup:

* is easy to automate.  This is really important to me.  If it's not
trivially easy, it's not going to get done every night.

* offers a big bang for the buck

* is easy to work with. Files are stored in regular directories and
don't require lengthy searching through a tape or a special software
to access.

My backup software--a python script I cooked up--is based on "Easy
Automated Snapshot-Style Backups with Linux and Rsync." Rubel's method
efficiently stores and transmits files by using rsync and hard links.
In effect, it performs an incremental backup every night, only backing
up the files that have changed.

My script stores complete copies of my computers' hard drives every
night, every week and every month going back 3 months.  Is this what
you mean by archive capability?

In my experience, Rubel's method scales well and leverages the
network.  Backup servers and clients can be scattered anywhere on the
net.  It's easy to add clients.

For details, see:

http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/

-- 

Ed Goppelt
http://www.hallwatch.org
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug