[GTALUG] GnuPG Woes...

Lennart Sorensen 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
same time.

> 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.

Len Sorensen

More information about the talk mailing list