[CentOS] evaluating backup systems: rsync
silvertip257 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 07:10:43 UTC 2013
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Keith Keller <
kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On 2013-01-12, SilverTip257 <silvertip257 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You mentioned about it running with other people changing files ... it
> > works ok for me. I have gigabytes of backups that get rsynced in the
> > to late morning ... not always are backups completely finished when rsync
> > scans the files. So it picks up on it when the cronjob runs the sync a
> > hours later.
> Since rsnapshot uses rsync under the hood, this strategy works for
> rsnapshot as well. The only real hiccup is if a user deletes a file
> between when it's scheduled to be synced and when rsync actuall reaches
> it to sync, rsync might produce a harmless error message.
Yep, a harmless error message.
> > *** You may have to run rsync as root with sudo to preserve all
> > permissions/ownership. ***
> > At work we have it locked down in sudoers to do so. It was a setup that
> > predated my employment there, so I don't know if running it as root was
> > necessary. Using SSH keys for auth.
> You can also use an OpenVPN tunnel and NFS mount with no_root_squash.
> I like this method a lot because the mount can be made read-only, to
> ensure that no source data ever gets accidentally clobbered. With an
> ssh key there's a risk (probably minimal, but nonzero) that a
> fumblefingers might delete some data on the wrong side.
NFS over a VPN tunnel isn't a bad idea -- being able to make the mount
read-only can be beneficial.
True, a risk is present if one is manually syncing the data.
I run my routine/daily rsyncs via a cronjob, so once it's set it is not
going to get fumbled. ;)
--dry-run is important to test before clobbering.
> kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
// SilverTip257 //
More information about the CentOS