-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:24:11PM +0100, Francesco Porro wrote: > On 16/02/2017 12:04, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Now if you are talking about "Real Snapshots" (i.e. files don't change > > during backup and stuff) > > > With rsync you'll always have some skew (i.e. the world is changing > > while the backup is running). > > Well, with the word "snapshot" I meant a "dump" of all my personal data > by daily basis. Currently I don't need to backup any additional db, > except for Thunderbird's and Firefox's ones. It should be ok to backup > those with no hassles via rsync or it can lead to any problems? in other > words: can rsync make a good backup of all my '~', including databases > of application like FF and TB (also if they're running)?
It depends :-) I wouldn't count on FF (and perhaps TB) to get their state "rescued" if you backup while running them: apart from there being tons of files in there, there are "database-like" files, like several Berkeley DB and several sqlite. While the biggest bulk is cache (and thus kind-of recoverable [1]), the whole mess might crawl along while backup is going through it. Depends on how much value you attach to it. If losing it on a blue moon is an option, don't worry: it will work "mostly". If not, you'd have to complement your rsync thing with taking dumps of the important things (e.g. bookmarks, whatever you care about) which are quiescent at rsync time (akin to taking a dump of an SQL database which gets backed up). For an SQL database it's a good thing to do anyway, since you get a backup which is hopefully portable across DBMS software versions. > > I had such a contraption running at a customer's (many moons ago) [...] > Yes, this is a useful method I can think about, and it is almost the > same thing described in mike rubel's article linked in my first message. > It should be ok, maybe with some scripting and scheduling via cron. Customer was happy :-) > Ps. is it ok to pgp sign messages on a mailinglist? I'm asking just > because I did so in the first post, but don't know if it's ok or > compliant with m/l policy. I've been signing mine all the time and nobody scolded me for that (for other things, though... ;-) regards - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlilrtIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaJCQCfbIRBbl75tnUo+qGWuCPoghpF owEAnilGOQYWQnOBcAATpEAuYWKbufeE =Lniw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
