On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:52:26 +0100, David Brown wrote:

Gabriel Knight wrote:
Hi all I need a free program to backup a ubuntu server for my school
class, it has to be as good or better than Rdiff and Rsync the server
will use SSH, MYSql and be a file and web server and do a couple of
other things. I need it to be either a gui or text box program.


As others have said, the obvious choice here would be ... rsync.

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:52:26 +0100, David Brown wrote:

Gabriel Knight wrote:
Hi all I need a free program to backup a ubuntu server for my school
class, it has to be as good or better than Rdiff and Rsync the server
will use SSH, MYSql and be a file and web server and do a couple of
other things. I need it to be either a gui or text box program.


As others have said, the obvious choice here would be ... rsync.

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

And a backup is not a copy?

A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:


*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

And a backup is not a copy?

A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.

On 2009-10-28, terryc <newsninespam-spam at (no spam) woa.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

And a backup is not a copy?

A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.

How do you come to that definition? A backup system has as many copies
as desired/needed by business practice. If one copy without history is
sufficient, then that's a good backup.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:


*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

And a backup is not a copy?

A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.

Since it was going to take days to make the
new copy, and they couldn't be bothered waiting, they cancelled the copy
and did the hardware upgrade anyway. When that failed, everything was
gone.

As you say, having a single copy is not a backup system by itself.

And even multiple copies on multiple devices at multiple locations is
not a backup system - you need a tried and tested recovery procedure to
make it a backup system.

As others have pointed out, it is the system, not the tools (tar, cpio,
rsync, etc).


However, the tools form the central part of the backup system, and
determine the main features you have available. Thus it does make sense
to talk about an rsync backup system.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:52:26 +0100, David Brown wrote:

Gabriel Knight wrote:
Hi all I need a free program to backup a ubuntu server for my school
class, it has to be as good or better than Rdiff and Rsync the server
will use SSH, MYSql and be a file and web server and do a couple of
other things. I need it to be either a gui or text box program.


As others have said, the obvious choice here would be ... rsync.

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:48:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

On 2009-10-28, terryc <newsninespam-spam at (no spam) woa.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.
And a backup is not a copy?
A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.
How do you come to that definition? A backup system has as many copies
as desired/needed by business practice. If one copy without history is
sufficient, then that's a good backup.

The basic reason is that problems can happen with "the copy". No matter
what your system, one copy is no copy at certain times.

As others have pointed out, it is the system, not the tools (tar, cpio,
rsync, etc).

As you say, it is about what he really needs.

My 2c is that depending on amount of data and frequency of changing, he
could probably just dump his databases and just burn a DVD each night.
$AUS50 for a dvd burner and AUS50c/DVD. Even cheap DVD should last a few
years before they are toasters.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:34:58 +0100, David Brown wrote:

Since it was going to take days to make the
new copy, and they couldn't be bothered waiting, they cancelled the copy
and did the hardware upgrade anyway. When that failed, everything was
gone.

I actually worked, briefly, for a company that would not buy new backup
tapes. After weeks of requesting new tapes, I eventually worked into the
EDP mangers office and dumped a backup report that took up half a box of
paper, normally 50 pages, and said "It is my belief that if we needed to
recover from a backup, the company could not do it". Then I held up a
sample of the 2nd hand tapes they were so proud of obtaining and left
tape coating over the managers desk. {.

As you say, having a single copy is not a backup system by itself.

And even multiple copies on multiple devices at multiple locations is
not a backup system - you need a tried and tested recovery procedure to
make it a backup system.

First thing you check when you become responsible for the company
backups. I've also come across a couple of those in my time. This isn't
too bad if you have a good GFS system and the paper trail (or transaction
logs) still exists.

As others have pointed out, it is the system, not the tools (tar, cpio,
rsync, etc).


However, the tools form the central part of the backup system, and
determine the main features you have available. Thus it does make sense
to talk about an rsync backup system.

Between scripts running tar, cpio and diff, there hasn't been much else
in many "branded" backup systems I've used. The part that makes them easy
to use is the database, query and file selection facilities.

The only other trick you need to know is that many put multiple jobs onto
one tape so you need to use /dev/nst0 (no rewind) and move pass the end
of tape(?) marker to be able to manually recover the contents of some of
these tapes.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

And a backup is not a copy?

A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.

terryc wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:48:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

On 2009-10-28, terryc <newsninespam-spam at (no spam) woa.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.
And a backup is not a copy?
A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.
How do you come to that definition? A backup system has as many copies
as desired/needed by business practice. If one copy without history is
sufficient, then that's a good backup.

The basic reason is that problems can happen with "the copy". No matter
what your system, one copy is no copy at certain times.


For an example, consider what happened to a very large software company
recently when trying to do a hardware upgrade of the storage system.
There was only one copy of the data (an old copy at that). Before doing
the hardware upgrade, they wanted to make a new copy - but there was not
enough space on the backup system. So they deleted their only copy, and
started making a new copy. Since it was going to take days to make the
new copy, and they couldn't be bothered waiting, they cancelled the copy
and did the hardware upgrade anyway. When that failed, everything was gone.

As you say, having a single copy is not a backup system by itself.

And even multiple copies on multiple devices at multiple locations is
not a backup system - you need a tried and tested recovery procedure to
make it a backup system.

As others have pointed out, it is the system, not the tools (tar, cpio,
rsync, etc).


However, the tools form the central part of the backup system, and
determine the main features you have available. Thus it does make sense
to talk about an rsync backup system.

As you say, it is about what he really needs.

My 2c is that depending on amount of data and frequency of changing, he
could probably just dump his databases and just burn a DVD each night.
$AUS50 for a dvd burner and AUS50c/DVD. Even cheap DVD should last a few
years before they are toasters.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:48:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

On 2009-10-28, terryc <newsninespam-spam at (no spam) woa.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.

And a backup is not a copy?

A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.

How do you come to that definition? A backup system has as many copies
as desired/needed by business practice. If one copy without history is
sufficient, then that's a good backup.

The basic reason is that problems can happen with "the copy". No matter
what your system, one copy is no copy at certain times.

As others have pointed out, it is the system, not the tools (tar, cpio,
rsync, etc).

As you say, it is about what he really needs.

David Brown <david at (no spam) westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

terryc wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:48:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

On 2009-10-28, terryc <newsninespam-spam at (no spam) woa.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.
And a backup is not a copy?
A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.
How do you come to that definition? A backup system has as many copies
as desired/needed by business practice. If one copy without history is
sufficient, then that's a good backup.
The basic reason is that problems can happen with "the copy". No matter
what your system, one copy is no copy at certain times.


For an example, consider what happened to a very large software company
recently when trying to do a hardware upgrade of the storage system.
There was only one copy of the data (an old copy at that). Before doing
the hardware upgrade, they wanted to make a new copy - but there was not
enough space on the backup system. So they deleted their only copy, and
started making a new copy. Since it was going to take days to make the
new copy, and they couldn't be bothered waiting, they cancelled the copy
and did the hardware upgrade anyway. When that failed, everything was gone.

As you say, having a single copy is not a backup system by itself.

Sorry, but your example does not show that at all. No backup system is proof
against total human stupidity.

And even multiple copies on multiple devices at multiple locations is
not a backup system - you need a tried and tested recovery procedure to
make it a backup system.

And rsync is a recovery system as well. That is the huge advantage of rsync. What
is saved is the same as what is needed. No compression, no weird format, not
concatenation that can be unreadable if a single byte changes.

terryc wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:48:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

On 2009-10-28, terryc <newsninespam-spam at (no spam) woa.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:55 +1100, Grant wrote:

*sync isn't a abckup system. It is just a copy system.
And a backup is not a copy?
A backup system has multiple copies, with historical content.
How do you come to that definition? A backup system has as many copies
as desired/needed by business practice. If one copy without history is
sufficient, then that's a good backup.
The basic reason is that problems can happen with "the copy". No matter
what your system, one copy is no copy at certain times.

As others have pointed out, it is the system, not the tools (tar, cpio,
rsync, etc).

As you say, it is about what he really needs.

Well said. The OP did not show up again. So it is not easy to guess what
he needs. One aspect that I miss in the discussion is networking. This is
a networking group, and the OP is a system at school which will likely be
a small network.
If more than one machine has to be included in a backup scheme a simple
script based system running on every single host quickly becomes too much
demanding in administration. In such a situation the big packages like
bacula, amanda or TVM show their strength in maintaining a single
database and backup documentation for all hosts. They are also able to do
load balancing and thus distributing costly full backups over the backup
cycle.

Günther