On Wednesday 07 May 2008 11:58:20 am David wrote: > Also, I don't trust rdiff-backup as much as I do rsync. It seems a bit > too complicated/fragile by comparison. Rsync is very robust, simple, > and works every time. The only reason I use rdiff-backup is because of > it's reverse delta support. I would prefer to replace rdiff-backup if > possible, rather than rsync.
If you are looking for a replacement, I don't know of any that do rdiffs besides rdiff-backup. I think that a good incremental backup would be your best option. It looks like all the stuff with making the hardlinks and temp directory are to avoid a potential conflict between the existing "rdiff-backup-data" directory on backup1 and the other "rdiff-backup-data" directory that gets written to on backup2. If backup1 and backup2 both have rdiff-backup installed then you can do something like rdiff-backup backup1::/backup/files /backup/path/on/backup2 --exclude **rdiff-backup-data** on backup2. This avoids making hardlinks and a temp directory and also avoids your problem of having the two "rdiff-backup-data" directories conflicting. MM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
