On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 13:44, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> > >
> > > Who the heck is trolling ? I'm asking a valid question, for a
> > > problem that concerns me. I run several e-mail servers, and the
> > > main problem I have with those is backup.
> >
> > An rsync based backup scheme works nicely against maildir format
> > although you may have to break it up into several runs since
> > rsync has some per-file memory overhead.
>
> I know this may sound old fashioned, but what is wrong with rdump
> for that ? I think that for this particular case, dump/rdump would
> be a better option (backup).
If you are doing archival copies tar/dump/rdump make sense. If you
want a close-to-current disk copy that you can mount instantly
or a warm-spare host that can take over with a small data loss
with a IP change along with the ability to copy back something
deleted since the last run, rsync will do it and know enough not
to copy files that are already there. If you want snapshot-like
backups over a certain amount of time, backuppc can do it using
rsync for the transport and keep daily snapshots for a week in
less space than the source data (depending on compression and
rate of change, of course...) or if you give up compression, rsync
can keep a current tree and one containing old versions by itself.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com