From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Jun 1 10:39:06 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407A8B58DF5 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:39:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: from uk1mail2513.mymailbank.co.uk (UK1MAIL2513-PERMANET.IE.mymailbank.co.uk [217.69.47.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17AD1FDD for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:39:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: from smtp.lan.sohara.org (UnknownHost [88.151.27.41]) by uk1mail2513-d.mymailbank.co.uk with SMTP; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:33:26 +0100 Received: from [192.168.63.1] (helo=steve.lan.sohara.org) by smtp.lan.sohara.org with smtp (Exim 4.86_2 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1b83T0-0004Q2-3J; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:33:38 +0000 Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:33:32 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith To: Luca Ferrari Cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: rsync or git backups? Message-Id: <20160601113332.5e250d300d770ab04e9c9cc2@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.24.29; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.1) X-Clacks-Overhead: "GNU Terry Pratchett" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:39:06 -0000 On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:35:06 +0200 Luca Ferrari wrote: > Hi all, > so far I'm using rsync to keep in sync a couple of removable media > (well, up to four) where one is the "master" and the others are a > cascade backups (meaning they are set at different time). > So far so good. > One problem is that I tend to change things in the master, e.g., bulk > file renaming or moving, so when I replicate it on the backups I have > to force the deletion of no more existing content. > This approach, however, relies on the fact that the master is good. My > fear is that if the master corrupts some file, I could possibly loss > them if they have also been moved since I will no more be able to > recognize them on the slaves. > > So I would like to have some feature like git (or fossil) for hash > handling, but since I'm talking about 290+ GB of binaries I'm not sure > this approach could work. > > Any suggestion? Use ZFS with snapshots (the zfs-periodic package is good for this) and replace the rsync with send/receive, ZFS will protect you from hardware silent corruption (provided you allow some redundancy - use copies on pools with no redundancy) while the snapshots will protect you from mistakes. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith