[GTALUG] GnuPG Woes...
lsorense at csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Sat Jan 3 15:18:53 UTC 2015
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 08:37:10PM +0000, Jamon Camisso wrote:
> The benefit of rsnapshot being that unless the original or subsequent
> versions are deleted, it is possible to go back in time to a version of
> the file that is intact. If the underlying disk is failing and
> corrupting files then ZFS or rsnapshot or tarballs won't make a
> difference anyway.
But ZFS would help. If the file is corrupted by a disk, then the checksum
almost certainly will fail and the copy from an alternate disk in the
filesystem will be read and is very unlikely to be corrupted at the
> FWIW, I use rsnapshot for backups on top of ZFS (on Linux) as a
> production remote backup server. Apart from lengthy delete times (which
> is an issue with BTRFS as well, and rsnapshot for any meaningful amount
> of backups on any filesystem), it has been a reliable, and space
> efficient backup system for a few years now.
I like rsnapshot too, but it is worth remembering that if your backup
of a file is ever corrupted by the disk, you won't get a new copy when
using rsnapshot/rsync in the typical mode.
More information about the talk