On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:26:48 +0200 Veljko <velj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would it be reasonable to use them both where appropriate or thats > just unnecessary complexity?
Hi Veljko, I prefer backups as simple as it could get (one reason why I use rsnapshot). So personally I wouldn't mix. But if you may want to provide an restore share for your users so they could recover their text files on their own (even then if they deleted/changed them some days ago) I would use rsnapshot for those files. For your Virtual Machines rdiff-backup should be better regarding backup size. So mixing might be worth it. If you don't want your users to recover files on their own, or only the most recent version you can use rdiff-backup for all of your files. If you want a fixed backup policy (e.g. 72h,7d,5w,12m, which means: keep the last 72 hourly backups, the last 7 daily backups, the last 5 weekly backups and the last 12 monthly backups), delta updates and don't want a restore share, take a look at obnam. If you want a fixed policy but there is no need for delta backups take rsnapshot. If you want something in between rdiff-backup might be a good choice. As you can see, it always depends on what you're trying to achieve. So I would suggest you do some tests on your own and choose the tool that fits you most. A nice comparison between rsnapshot and rdiff-backup can be found here: http://www.saltycrane.com/blog/2008/02/backup-on-linux-rsnapshot-vs-rdiff/ (Also the comments are very insightful.) Best regards Denis Witt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120911141830.0970c664@X200
