At 9:23 PM -0500 1/26/06, Julian Underwood wrote: >On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:17 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >> > >> > >> Why do you want to use rsync for this? Are you doing something >> that you can not do using the -u option of tar or the -f option >> or zip? If so, you may want to look at standard backup software. >> >> Mikkel > >Hi, > >Yeah, you're right, I suppose the -u option of tar or the -f option of >zip will probably work just fine. The reason I want to backup "changes >only" is because I'm going be be doing nightly backups to a remote site >and as the bandwidth is going to be limited. > >Additionally, as the file systems I'm going to be backing up to are SMB, >I wanted the data to be compressed and archived into one file so if >there are files with unsupported SMB filenames/lengths, they won't get >stripped when put onto the SMB volume. I'm going to be doing this for >some OS X servers as well. > >Does this make sense? You think this is an OK way to go about doing an >"offsite" DR backup to a SMB volume? When you use tar, the destination filesystem won't get a chance to see or muck with any of the attributes of the backed-up files. Probably the only likely problem is with file-size limits. FWIW, tar can back up changes only, by keeping a list of files it has backed up. See option --listed-incremental in "info tar", and the section on Backups. I find info to be inscrutable, so "info tar", U, cursor down to Backups, Enter. If you compress the resulting files, you have more risk that a single error can make all of a backup (or at least any following incrementals) useless. I wonder if there is a tool to add redundancy, like .par files on usenet? (Note that I have only read about this stuff; I have no actual experience.) ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
