Slashdot Mirror


Linux Backups Made Easy

mfago writes "A colleague of mine has written a great tutorial on how to use rsync to create automatic "snapshot-style" backups. Nothing is required except for a simple script, although it is thus not necessarily suitable for data-center applications. Please try to be gentle on his server: it is the $80 computer that he mentions in the tutorial. Perhaps try the Google cache." An excellent article answering a frequently asked question.

11 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. First Mirror by doublem · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had the chance to be the first post, but decided to mirror the site first.

    My mirror is here

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  2. Because Linus says dump isn't reliable. by glrotate · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Because Linus says dump isn't reliable. by zrodney · · Score: 3, Informative

      he says right there in the linked article that
      dump can't reliably back up the filesystem
      because of the kernel filesystem caching, and that
      future kernel development is headed further in that
      direction, so you might as well not depend on dump.

      seems pretty reasonable to me, go ahead and use
      dump if you like though

  3. Re:'man dump' by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's an expression, it's not particularly abusive.

    rm -rf backup.3
    mv backup.2 backup.3
    mv backup.1 backup.2
    cp -al backup.0 backup.1
    rsync -a --delete source_directory/ backup.0/

    There. That's the script basically. Add more snapshot levels as needed, stick it in cron at whatever interval you need.

    dump only supports ext2/3. This supports any file system, and retreiving a file from backups is as simple as running "cd" to the directory of the snapshot you need and "cp" the file out.

    I run backups from Linux to IRIX and other UNIXs using gnu rsync and openssh. This little trick is going to be very handy for me. I can't waste my time worrying about which filesystem type the files came from originally.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  4. Check out glastree by Soylent+Beige · · Score: 3, Informative

    Been using a script called glastree on several production file servers for quite some time now.
    It work just great! At one site I've got about 7 weeks of depth from 3 different servers all
    mirrored via ssh-nfs on one lowly Penti 133. We still spin tapes mind you, but glastree has
    been flawless.

    Been meaning to buy the author a virtual beer for some time now . . .

    http://igmus.org/code/

    From the website:
    'The poor man's daily snapshot, glastree builds live backup trees, with branches for each day. Users directly browse the past to recover older documents or retrieve lost files. Hard links serve to compress out unchanged files, while modified ones are copied verbatim. A prune utility effects a constant, sliding window.'
    --

    --
    Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.
  5. SSH comment needs to be added! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    This sounds great, I would like to thank the author for the article. Only one thing really should be added. The way that you should do rsync for a back up server is to do rsync over ssh with a passwordless connection. (see http://www.unixadm.net/howto/rsync-ssh.html with google cache)

    Also, it should probably also be done from the real server to the backup server so that you can not just break one machine and get into all. (if you break into the real machine as root then you should be able to get into the backup machine)

    This allows the backup machine to have only one open port. ssh which can be tcpwrapped to allow connections only from the machines that it backsup.

  6. rdiff-backup is easier and more efficient by heydan · · Score: 5, Informative

    The backup scheme described here uses hard links to avoid storing multiple copies of identical files, but when a large file changes even in a small way it stores a whole fresh copy of that file. rdiff-backup is more efficient because it stores one complete copy of your current tree with reverse diffs that allow you to step back to previous versions if you need to. If a large file changes in a small way, only the reverse diff is stored to encode that. This is very handy for cases where, for example, a multiple megabyte e-mail inbox has had just a few kilobytes of new messages appended to the end (although the rsync/rdiff-backup algorithm is also efficient with changes in the middle of a file). Being more efficient in this way translates directly to an increase in the number of past versions you can fit in the same space which can make all the difference if it takes you a while to realize that a given file has been accidentally deleted or damaged.

    http://rdiff-backup.stanford.edu/

    1. Re:rdiff-backup is easier and more efficient by sc0rpi0n · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've used rsync for my backups until now, but I've downloaded rdiff-backup 0.9.5 and I love it already!

      New users: use the development version, it's a lot more efficient if you have a lot of small files, because it uses librsync instead of executing rdiff for each file. I've measured a factor 20 speedup on my devel directory!

  7. Not snapshots by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 5, Informative

    The method Mike describes does not create snapshots, so you can't use it to create consistent backups: Files can be written while they are read by rsync, and lots of software (including databases) requires cross-file data consistency (some broken software even expects permanent inode numbers!). rsync can be used for backups (if you trust the algorithm), but in most cases, you have to do other things to get a proper backup.

    At home, I store xfsdump output encrypted with GnuPG on an almost public (and thus untrusted) machine with lots of disk space (on multiple disks). At work, I do the same, but the untrusted machine is in turn backed up using TSM. In both cases, incremental backups work in the expected way. Of course, all this doesn't solve the snapshot problem (I'd probably need LVM for that), but with the encryption step, you can more easily separate the backup from your real box (without worrying too much about the implications).

  8. Re:What I'd really like... by gordon_schumway · · Score: 5, Informative
    Then you should check out LVM. From the LVM HOWTO:
    A wonderful facility provided by LVM is 'snapshots'. This allows the administrator to create a new block device which is an exact copy of a logical volume, frozen at some point in time. Typically this would be used when some batch processing, a backup for instance, needs to be performed on the logical volume, but you don't want to halt a live system that is changing the data. When the snapshot device has been finished with the system administrator can just remove the device. This facility does require that the snapshot be made at a time when the data on the logical volume is in a consistent state, later sections of this document give some examples of this.
    --

    Ha! I kill me!

  9. Re:What I'd really like... by nettdata · · Score: 3, Informative

    A few years ago I saw a neat (expensive!) disc array that could 'freeze' the disc image at a single point in time so that a backup could be taken from the frozen image.

    We used to do this years ago before any such "options" were provided by drive manufacturers.

    We were doing large Oracle backups, and there were issues with taking too much time to do a backup.

    What we did was to throw some extra drives into the (at the time, software) RAID, so that we had a mirror of what we wanted to backup. At backup time, we'd shut down the Oracle instance, break the mirror, and then re-start the Oracle instance. The whole procedure resulted in less than 2 minutes of downtime for the instance, which was more than acceptable. We'd then take the "broken" mirror, re-mount it under a "temp" mount point, and then take our time backing it up (it usually took about 6-8 hours). Once we were finished backing it up, we'd then re-attach the broken mirrors and re-silver it. This was all done via software RAID, before journalling was available.

    We did this about once a week, and it worked out great.

    --



    $0.02 (CDN)