rsync over nfs or rsync protocol
jerrymc at msu.edu
Mon Sep 26 14:24:15 UTC 2011
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Jason C. Wells wrote:
> On 09/23/11 14:11, Jerry McAllister wrote:
> >Why would you interject NFS in the middle of it? ////jerry
> There would be no middle. I would run rsyncd or nfsd, but not both.
Ah, I get it. In that case, I think rsync is probably more useful
than NFS because it can check and only copy modified files.
Alternatively, if you are doing backups to recover from system
failures - such as a disk crash, you would probably prefer dump(8)/restore(8)
They can write to a file on the other machine, can do "change dumps"
and they preserve all the needed UNIX attributes.
I actually do a dump piped to a restore on another disk as a convenient
backup to handle my all too frequent cases of fumble fingers and sleep
deprived bad thinking where I need to quickly get back a file I mangled,
deleted or need to start over on. Restore can easily pull single files
or directory trees from a dump file as well. But having it already
pre-restored makes it easier -- and only doubles my disk use - disk is
cheap isn't it.
More information about the freebsd-questions