 |
|
| Linux Forum Index » Linux Networking » A good free backup progie like Rsync... |
|
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Günther Schwarz... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Brown wrote:
Quote: Günther Schwarz wrote:
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.
Edit: TSM, not TVM.
Quote: They are also able to
do load balancing and thus distributing costly full backups over the
backup cycle.
We can talk about rsync and networks if you like! rsync is very
network-friendly, as it only copies over the differences between
directories when doing a synchronisation (assuming you have appropriate
flags set). For large files, it can even copy only the changed parts of
the file. And all the network transfers can be compressed. This all
makes it very bandwidth friendly, and is very useful for doing offsite
backups.
That's all true and these are useful features of rsync. I use the tool
often and like it.
Quote: For backup of multiple machines, it's best to install an rsync server on
the servers, and use an rsync client on the backup machine. This gives
you a single place to organise most of the backup system.
Still it will be demanding to monitor and administrate such a scheme.
With amanda I get an email every morning showing me which hosts have been
in the backup last night, possible errors, amount of data copied etc. It
takes me just a few seconds to verify that all went well, and I keep my
ass safe. Also I do not have to worry about distributing the load evenly
over the backup cycle as this is done automatically by amanda. I have
tools at hand which allow to analyze the backup cycle in detail. For me
all this makes the time spent on the configuration of a relatively
complex backup package well spent even for a small network with about 200
partitions and directories in the backup pool. It might take me a lot
more work to get the same convenience and functionality from home-made
scripts.
Günther |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve Wampler... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:51:13 +0100, David Brown wrote:
Quote: We can talk about rsync and networks if you like! rsync is very
network-friendly, as it only copies over the differences between
directories when doing a synchronisation (assuming you have appropriate
flags set). For large files, it can even copy only the changed parts of
the file. And all the network transfers can be compressed. This all
makes it very bandwidth friendly, and is very useful for doing offsite
backups.
There are, of course, exceptions to any rule. I ran some tests a while
back and discovered that in our situation it was faster to simply use
rcp than rsync. We were syncing very large files across a fast network
and it took rsync longer to figure out what to copy than to just blindly
copy it all. In fact, for files that were identical at both ends, rcp was
*still* faster.
However, I don't disagree with the above as a general guideline. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:43 am
|
|