Steve Litt via plug on 17 Jul 2020 11:29:22 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Best Solution for Multiple Volume Backups

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:53:36 -0400
Rich Freeman via plug <> wrote:

> I don't think it supports multiple volumes (that is, the backup spans
> more than one disk/etc), and I don't want to mess around with RAID and
> so on to try to merge devices even where this is supportable.
> If it weren't for that there are actually a lot of solutions like
> duplicity, restic, rsnapshot, rsync, and so on...

I'm not sure why doing multiple disks, or volumes, etc, on a single
backup, is so important. I run a shellscript that sequentially runs five
or six rsync-containing shellscripts to pull data from five or six
directories, mostly on different partitions, to my backup server. All
the files end up in the right places on the backup server. What do I
lose by using five or six processes to do it?

In case somebody brings up backup speed and efficiency, if I thought
for one minute that the wire and the backup server's CPU weren't pretty
close to saturated, I could run them concurrently by putting & at the
end, and redirecting each one's output to a file.

I'm not backing up any databases, but if I were, I'd either:

1) Make sure they're not being used, and back up their files, or,

2) Make sure they're not being used, dump them to SQL files, tgz the SQL
   files, and back those up like any other files, or, 

3) Use snapshots if the software or OS permits them and everything's on
   the same volume.

Anyway, to me it doesn't sound relevant whether one uses one command to
back up all volumes, or uses a command per volume.


Steve Litt 
May 2020 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques
     of the Successful Technologist
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --