Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Asynchronous RAID-1 Free Software Backup For Laptops?

First time accepted submitter ormembar writes "I have a laptop with a 1 TB hard disk. I use rsync to perform my backups (hopefully quite regularly) on an external 1 TB hard disk. But, with such a large hard disk, it takes quite some time to perform backups because rsync scans the whole disk for updates (15 minutes in average). Does it exist somewhere a kind of asynchronous RAID-1 free software that would record in a journal all the changes that I perform on the disk and replay this journal later, when I plug my external hard disk on the laptop? I guess that it would be faster than usual backup solutions (rsync, unison, you name it) that scan the whole partitions every time. Do you feel the same annoyance when backing up laptops?"

48 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. mdadm can do this by Fruit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Use mdadm -C -b internal to create a bitmap. Detach and readd the mirror at will and it will only sync the difference.

    1. Re:mdadm can do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Effectively you create a RAID 1 mirror. When you remove the external drive the RAID degrades. The raid bitmap keeps track of changes. When you plug the external drive in you just have to tell it to bring it up to date. Which syncs the only changes.

    2. Re:mdadm can do this by kasperd · · Score: 2

      Use mdadm -C -b internal to create a bitmap. Detach and readd the mirror at will and it will only sync the difference.

      I am going to test this on my next laptop, or if I decide to upgrade my current with an SSD some day.

      Meanwhile, I do have a couple of questions. How automated is this going to be? Will it automatically start to sync, once the USB/eSata disk is connected?

      Can I safely attach that disk to another computer for reading? I am worried such operation might corrupt data, even if I don't write anything. If I connect the external disk to a workstation, do I risk that the RAID layer will declare the SSD to be dead and record this fact on the external disk? Is reading from the external disk going to perform a journal replay and thereby perform some unintended writes? Is the raid layer going to increase the event counter on the external disk and potentially run past the SSD or end up at the same event counter due to the same number of cycles, but on different machines?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    3. Re:mdadm can do this by bitMonster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, that is done for HA pairs. You can use nbd (network block device) and then create a RAID-1 pair across the local disk and the nbd. There are better alternatives now (such as drbd), but I'm not aware of any problem with nbd+RAID. Jeff

    4. Re:mdadm can do this by ormembar · · Score: 2

      What will happen if the laptop hard disk fail? Let's say the laptop harddisk is disk0 in the RAID-1 configuration. The external hard disk is disk1. The degraded RAID-1 is due to the presence of disk0, and the absence of disk1. If disk0 fails for some reason, can I put a new "empty" disk0 in the laptop and mirror disk1 to disk0? I am not sure how to do that with mdadm.

    5. Re:mdadm can do this by fnj · · Score: 2

      Seriously? If the drive in the laptop fails, it has failed in any scenario. It doesn't matter what strategy you use to back up. You are looking at installing a new one and copying the backup in any event. In any backup scenario you have to do an added trick with grub to copy the boot sector to the second drive. Then all you have to do to recover is pop a new drive in the laptop and dd the backup drive to the new drive, boot sector, partition table, file system, files and all.

    6. Re:mdadm can do this by Fruit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you boot the laptop with disk1 and a blank disk, mdadm will see disk1 as the raidset, in degraded mode. Just add the blank disk just as you would if a disk failed in a regular setup. Do test this beforehand. :)

  2. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    RAID is not backup.

    1. Re:Obligatory by XanC · · Score: 5, Informative

      True. I'd recommend he check out rdiff-backup, which keeps snapshots of previous syncs. Fantastic tool.

    2. Re:Obligatory by hawguy · · Score: 2

      RAID is not backup.

      It is in this situation since he wants to mirror to an external disk , then break the mirror and unplug the disk.

      It's no worse than if he does "rsync --delete" to the backup medium. (well ok, slightly worse since if the mirror fails in the middle, the backup disk is left in an inconsistent state and could be unreadable, but the rsync would also leave an unknown number of files/folders unsynced, so it's not a perfect backup itself)

      As long as you have more than one backup disk, then a mirror is as safe as rsync. There may be better solutions, but either backup solution will let you recover your system from the backup disk if there's a failure of the primary system.

      Back in the day (before I could make filesystem level or SAN level snapshots) that used to be how I did backups of a large database system (where "large" was 15GB, which tells you how long ago it was). I'd mirror the production system disks to a separate set of disks on the live system (the disks were already mirrored, so this was a "third mirror"), after the mirror was complete (which took most of the night) I'd quiesce the database and filesystem in the morning, break the mirror, then mount the disks on another machine to backup to tape. But I could have chosen to just pull the disks in that RAID set out of the array and put them in the tape cabinet as the backup and it would have still been a backup.

    3. Re:Obligatory by Crimey+McBiggles · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just because you've hacked RAID into part of a backup strategy does not mean that backup is a standard use-case for RAID. It's far too easy for the wrong disk to get overwritten because of all the things RAID is set up to do by default. With rsync, you're telling the disks exactly which direction the data needs to flow. In a production environment, there's also a greater chance of failure using RAID because of the whole "plugging / unplugging drives" thing. Sure, it's rare, but your operating system and/or motherboard may or may not enjoy having drives attached and detached from its SATA bus. Hearing the above, a systems administrator would assume you're confused between the terms "backup" and "mirror". It's a non-standard use-case, so the admin that arrives after you've moved on to another job will have to deal with that confusion.

      --
      Crimey
    4. Re:Obligatory by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Just because you've hacked RAID into part of a backup strategy does not mean that backup is a standard use-case for RAID. It's far too easy for the wrong disk to get overwritten because of all the things RAID is set up to do by default. With rsync, you're telling the disks exactly which direction the data needs to flow.

      In a production environment, there's also a greater chance of failure using RAID because of the whole "plugging / unplugging drives" thing. Sure, it's rare, but your operating system and/or motherboard may or may not enjoy having drives attached and detached from its SATA bus.

      Hearing the above, a systems administrator would assume you're confused between the terms "backup" and "mirror". It's a non-standard use-case, so the admin that arrives after you've moved on to another job will have to deal with that confusion.

      My RAID backup strategy was fully supported and recommended by the manufacturer of the storage array, and was a big selling point. It wasn't a hack. Even tape backups can suffer problems from overwriting the wrong tape if someone does something stupid. "Oh hey, the backup system says this tape isn't expired yet, I'm sure I loaded the right tape, so I'll just do a hard-erase so I can write to it"

    5. Re:Obligatory by hawguy · · Score: 2

      My RAID backup strategy was fully supported and recommended by the manufacturer of the storage array, and was a big selling point. It wasn't a hack. Even tape backups can suffer problems from overwriting the wrong tape if someone does something stupid. "Oh hey, the backup system says this tape isn't expired yet, I'm sure I loaded the right tape, so I'll just do a hard-erase so I can write to it"

      Here's a Sun/Oracle doc that explains the procedure:

      http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19683-01/817-2530/6mi6gg886/index.html

      How to Use a RAID 1 Volume to Make an Online Backup
      You can use this procedure on any file system except root (/). Be aware that this type of backup creates a “snapshot” of an active file system. Depending on how the file system is being used when it is write-locked, some files and file content on the backup might not correspond to the actual files on disk.

      The following limitations apply to this procedure:

      * If you use this procedure on a two-way mirror, be aware that data redundancy is lost while one submirror is offline for backup. A multi-way mirror does not have this problem.

      * There is some overhead on the system when the reattached submirror is resynchronized after the backup is complete.

  3. Re:TimeMachine by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't solve his problem. TimeMachine takes considerable time to prep and start a backup before it starts actually doing any work, I'd guess its likely doing the same sort of thing that Rsync, gathering a list of changes.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  4. Re:find & diff by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is traversing the whole directory tree with find different from what rsync does?
    Running a daemon that lists modified files using inotify might work.

  5. ZFS: Snapshot + send by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cleanest implementation of this I've seen is with ZFS.

    You do a snapshot of your filesystem, and then do a zfs send to your remote backup server, which then replicates that snapshot by replaying the differences. If you are experiencing poor speed due to read/write buffering issues, pipe through mbuffer.

    The only issue is that it requires that you have your OS on top of ZFS.

  6. Exclude directories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Are you backing up EVERYTHING on the laptop -- OS and data included? Even if you are only backing up your home directory there is stuff you don't need to backup like the .thumbnails directory which can be quite large. Try using rysnc's exclude option to restrict the backup to only what you care about.

    DNA
    AKA mrascii

  7. Re:Time Machine by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

    TimeMachine takes about 15 minutes to do the prep work before it starts copying for me, on a 2012 Retina MBP with 16Gb of RAM and only 256GB of disk space ... 64 GB taken by an unbacked up BootCamp part and another 120 or so eaten in Windows VMs that don't get backed up either ... i.e. Its not a slow spinning platter backing up a terabyte of data.

    I see no indication of any Journal, it certainly isn't making it faster. Pretty freaking slow actually.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  8. COW or desync'ed RAID by phorm · · Score: 5, Informative

    In this case, it sounds like you want a fast on-demand sync rather than a RAID.

    However, you could possibly use dm-raid for this if you're a linux user.
    Have the internal disk(s) as a degraded md-raid1 partition. When you connect the backup disk, have it become part of the RAID and the disks should sync up. That said, it likely won't be any faster than rsync, quite possibly slower as it'll have to go over the entire volume.

    Alternate solutions:
    * Have a local folder that does daily syncs/backups. Move those to the external storage when it's connected.
        CAVEATS: Takes space until the external disk is available
    * Use a differential filesystem, or maybe something like a COW (copy-on-write) filesystem. Have the COW system sync over to the backup disk (when connected) and then merge it into the main filesystem tree after sync
        For example, /home is a combination of /mnt/home-ro (ro) and /mnt/home-rw (rw, COW filesystem). When external media is connected, /mnt/home-rw is synced to external media, then back over /mnt/home-ro

  9. OS? by ralf1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The OP doesn't mention which OS he's on - the tools he mentions both run across multiple OS's. Would be helpful to know. I know as a group we probably assume some form of Linux but..... I use MS Home Server at the house to back up my family's multiple Windows machines. Runs on crappy hardware, does incrementals on a schedule, allows file level or bare metal restore, keeps daily/weekly/fulls as long as I ask it to. I know we aren't a Windows friendly crowd but this product does exactly what it promises and does it pretty well.

    --
    "Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
  10. Re:Time Machine by zieroh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This doesn't match my experience. Time Machine fires up in the background, does its thing, and then stops shortly thereafter. Certainly much less than 15 minutes. More like five or less. This is on a new-ish iMac with a 3TB internal drive.

    It wouldn't even be noticeable were it not for the fact that I can hear the TM destination drive (sitting on a shelf behind me) spin up once an hour.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  11. CrashPlan by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Informative

    CrashPlan is free, but not open, and I think will do everything you need. You can backupto an external disk, over the network to one of your own machines, or back up to a freind who also runs it. Great key based encryption support. If you want, you can pay them for offsite backups (which is a great deal as well, in my opinion). It's cross-platform, and easy to use. Never underestimate the benefits of off-site backups.

  12. Re:find & diff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's different in that you don't have to sit and wait for it and doing the backup will consist of only the actual copying

    I suggest you look again at rsync.
      - It compares changed files and copies only what has been changed. Changed files are identified by differing mtimes (by default).
      - rsync can also handle removed files with the --delete option.
      - It can do the entire filesystem tree in a single command
      - There are filter options so you can include/exclude what paths to copy (eg you don't want to copy /proc and there are some directories such as /tmp and /run which you may not care about).

  13. Just use Windows Backup by benjymouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Windows Backup (since Vista) use Volume Shadow Copy (VSS) to do block level reverse incremental backup. I.e. it uses the journaling file system to track changed Blocks and only copies over the changed Blocks.

    Not only that, it also backs up to a virtual harddisk file (VHD) which you can attach (Mount) as a seperately. This file system will hold the complete history, i.e. you can use the "previous versions" feature to go back to a specific backup of a directory or file.

    --
    Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    1. Re:Just use Windows Backup by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Unless you're running Windows 8 or Server 2012, Windows Backup on Windows 7 and below is functionally obsolete due to the new 3TB + drives now in 4k sector Advanced Format technology. As long as you can still find working 2TB drives and you don't have that much data to backup, you'll be fine with Windows Backup. Otherwise, upgrade the OS or use ArcServeD2D which I know works well (and expensive too).

      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2510009

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re: Just use Windows Backup by benjymouse · · Score: 2

      Home versions of windows don't support scheduled backups. You might be able to hack something yourself using task scheduler and a batch file though.

      No, that is not correct.

      At least in Windows 7 *all* editions have the full image capability. Only the professional/enterprise editions can backup to a *network* drive. But in this case it is a local or attached disk, so the edition really does not matter.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    3. Re:Just use Windows Backup by benjymouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless you're running Windows 8 or Server 2012, Windows Backup on Windows 7 and below is functionally obsolete due to the new 3TB + drives now in 4k sector Advanced Format technology.

      Nice. So because you can buy large-capacity drives that immediately would "functionally obsolete" backup solutions even if a system does not have such a drive? Tell me, did you buy a new BMW when apple changed the connector for iPhone 5? You know, the old BMW are now "functionally obsolete".

      Not that it matters much here anyway, because you got it wrong. Windows backup *will* backup to drives larger than 3TBs - as long as they use the 512e advanced formatting where it logically uses 512 bytes allocation units but physically 4096 bytes units. The solution is to use the GPT (GUID Partition Table) format. This will work for Vista and up.

      The drives that are exclusively 4096 cannot be used with Windows 7 / Server 2012 - that's a limitation of the OS and not the backup software, however.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
  14. Re:Time Machine by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is my current experience with mine too. However during the prep stage it is making room on my time machine drive to receive the changes. Consolidating the older files will take time.

    When my drive was new and had plenty of space, the prep stage was much shorter.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  15. Whooosh by jayteedee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Holy cow people, your missing the OP point. It's taking 15 minutes to SCAN the 1TB drive.

    I've run into the same problem on windows and Linux. Especially for remote rsync updates on Linux on slow wireless connections. It's not the 1TB that kills since I can read 4TB drives with hundreds of movies in seconds. It's the amount of files that kill performance.

    My solution on windows is to take some of the directories with 10,000 files and put them into an archive (think clipart directories). Zip, Truecrypt, tar, whatever. This speeds up reading the sub-directories immensely. Obviously, this only works for directories that are not accessed frequently. Also, FAT32 is much faster on 3000+ files in a directory than NTFS is. Most of my truecrypt volumes with LOTS of files are using FAT32 just because of the directory reading speed.

    On Linux systems, I just run rsync on SUB-directories. I run the frequently accessed ones more often and the less-accessed directories less often. Simple, No. My rsyncs are all across the wire, so I need the speed. Plus some users are on cell-phone wireless plans, so need to minimize data usage.

    --
    Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
    1. Re:Whooosh by benjymouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      My solution on windows is to take some of the directories with 10,000 files and put them into an archive (think clipart directories).

      I hope your are not an IT professional. Windows comes with a perfectly good backup solution built-in. It will use Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) to track changes as they occur and subsequently only do backup of the changes blocks. No need to scan *anything* as the journaling file system has already recorded a full list of changes in the journal.

      The backup is basically stored in a VHD virtual harddisk (and some catalog metadata around it), so you can even attach the VHD and browse it. It will by default let you browse the latest backup, but the previous versions feature will let you browse back in time to any previous backup still stored in the VHD (oldest backups vill be pruned from the backup when the capacity is needed). The VHD is a inverse incremental backup because it stores the latest backup as the readily available version and only the incremental (block level) differences between previous backup sets.

      Moreover, VSS also ensures persistent consistency for a lot of applications that are VSS aware (VSS writers), i.e. database systems like Oracle, SQL Server, Active Directory, registry etc. VSS coordinates with the applications so that exactly when the snapshot is taken, the applications ensure that they have flushed all state to disk. This means that applications will not need to be stopped to get a consistent backup, i.e. database systems will not see a restore of a backup that was taken from a running system as a "crash" (as they would without such a service) from which they must recover through some other means (typically a roll-forward log).

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
  16. Re:find & diff by Desler · · Score: 2

    Did you even read the title of the submission. He wants FOSS.

  17. Do it on a lower level. by tibit · · Score: 2

    I'd think to use LVM and filesystem snapshots. The snapshot does the trick of journaling your changes and only your changes. You can ship the snapshot over to the backup volume simply by netcat-ing it over the network. The backup's logical volume needs to have same size as the original volume. It's really a minimal-overhead process. Once you create the new snapshot volume on the backup, the kernels on both machines are essentially executing a zero-copy sendfile() syscall. It doesn't get any cheaper than that.

    Once the snapshot is transferred, your backup machine can rsync or simply merge the now-mounted snapshot to the parent volume.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    1. Re:Do it on a lower level. by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, of course I goofed, it's not that easy (well it is, read on). A snapshot keeps track of what has changed, yes, but it records not the new state, but the old state. What you want to transfer over is the new state. So you can use the snapshot for the location of changed state (for its metadata only), and the parent volume for the actual state.

      That's precisely what lvmsync does. That's the tool you want to do what I said above, only that it'll actually work :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  18. Re:find & diff by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

    Rsync copies only changed files. The time-consuming part is reading all directories in the directory tree.

  19. Re:Time Machine by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Read from the top level and you'll see that no-one's made the assumption that he's using a Mac. This has simply become a side discussion on TM.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  20. Upgrade your rsync! by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're holding it wrong. ;)

    rsync 2.x was horribly slow as it would scan the entire source looking for changed files, build a list of files, and then (once the initial scan was complete) would start to transfer data to the destination.

    rsync 3.x starts building the list of changed files, and starts transferring data right away.

    Unless you are changing a tonne of files between each rsync, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes using rsync 3.x to backup a 1 TB drive. Unless it's an uber-slow PoS drive, of course. :)

    We use rsync to backup all our remote school servers. Very rarely does a single server backup take more than 30 minutes, and that's for 4 TB of storage using 500 GB drives (generally only a few GB of changed data). And that's across horrible ADSL links with only 0.768 Mbps upload speeds!

    Going disk-to-disk should be even faster.

  21. ZFS - incremental/snapshot? by Roskolnikov · · Score: 4, Informative

    two pools, internalPool, externalPool

    use ZFS send and receive to migrate your data from internal to external, you and do whole fs or incremental if you keep a couple of snaps local on your internal disk, this can get excessive if you have a lot of delta or you want a long time.

    http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18752_01/html/819-5461/gbchx.html

    of course you will need a system that can use ZFS, there are more options for that than time machine, its block level and its fast, and it doesn't depend on just one device, you can have multiple devices (I like to keep some of my data at work, why? my backup solution is in the same house that would burn, if it burned...)

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  22. Re:find & diff by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 2

    Exactly. I think rsync will do nicely. I use it for nightly backups and I rotate through 5 increments. The oldest goes to the bit bucket. Note the copy link -l option.
    A snippet:


    [more rotations above]
    if [ -d $BACKUP_DEST/$(basename $i)/increment.0 ]; then
    cp -al $BACKUP_DEST/$(basename $i)/increment.0 $BACKUP_DEST/$(basename $i)/increment.1
    fi

    rsync -av --delete --exclude-from="$EXCLUDE_LIST" $i/ $BACKUP_DEST/$(basename $i)/increment.0/
    touch $BACKUP_DEST/$(basename $i)/increment.0
    done
    echo "Backup Complete on "$(date)

  23. Re:Time Machine by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2

    TM could be doing 15 minutes of work on your own HD before it bothers spinning-up the external, you realize.

    You may be correct, but your evidence doesn't match your assertion.

  24. Re:My solution by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    You don't transfer anywhere near as much data over it.

    You leave that on the server and use the internet just for the nice cheap display.

  25. Btrfs send/receive by jandar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Btrfs send/receive should possible be doing the trick. After first cloning the disk and before every subsequent transfer create a reference-snapshot on the laptop and delete the previous one after the transfer.

    $ btrfs subvolume snapshot /mnt/data/orig /mnt/data/backup43
    $ btrfs send -p /mnt/data/backup42 /mnt/data/backup43 | btrfs receive /mnt/backupdata
    $ btrfs subvolume delete /mnt/data/backup42

    I havn't tried this for myself, so the necessary disclaimer: this may eat your disk or kill a kitten ;-)

  26. Btrfs send & receive by flux · · Score: 2

    Btrfs has tools for doing this. It also comes with find-new that allows to find exactly which files have been changed between snapshots, and it does it basically instantenously.

    Though Btrfs might not be the solution for ensuring data integirity at this point.. But setting up hourly snapshots of your drives can be quite nice when you accidentally destroy something you've created after the last backup.

  27. Re:Time Machine by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Welcome to the future. We can even use variable-width fonts now.

  28. Re:you backup 1TB from a laptop? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Do you modify all your research work from the last 20 years? If not, exclude it from backup, since you already have it backed up and are not changing it.

  29. Re:TimeMachine by Smurf · · Score: 2

    AFAIK, Time Machine is a GUI frontend for rsync. Watch Activity Monitor.app when it fires up. That will tell you. I don't use Time Machine, personally, I know how to use rsync.

    No, Time Machine is NOT a frontend for rsync. Yes, you can achieve something that resembles Time Machine by using the --link-dest option.

    I use rsync --link-dest regularly through a script called tym ("Time rsYnc Machine") to backup stuff on systems at work for which I don't have admin privileges to configure Time Machine (oh, I haven't done it in a few weeks, I should do it asap!). So I know it has some drawbacks compared to TM, the main two being:

    • - It always traverses the whole directory hierarchy looking for changes. Time Machine doesn't always do that.
    • - It always creates a hard link for every file being backed up that has not changed. Hard links are very inexpensive, but still it takes a considerable amount of time if you need to create over a million hard links *every* time you back up.

    If you read John Siracusa's excellent OS X Leopard review you will find that Time Machine avoids traversing the whole hierarchy because it taps into FSEvents which keeps a record of the files that have been modified since the last backup. TM will only do a full, "deep" traversing if it decides that the record is stale (not sure how it does that) and only then the backup takes an inordinate amount of time.

    In Siracusa's review you will also find that Time Machine creates hard links to directories for which none of the content has changed since the last backup (as odd as that may sound) thus avoiding the creation of the possibly hundreds of thousands of hard links for all the files inside them.

  30. Re:TimeMachine by RulerOf · · Score: 2

    I wish there was something more like Time Machine for Windows and Linux - especially the part where there's dated directories with hard links back to the original revision of the files.

    As far as I'm aware, the "File History" feature in Windows 8 will do this, and it's much more granular than what was sort of "built in" by the "Previous Versions" tab on a file or folder's properties. However with it set up properly, even the "Previous Versions" feature that dates back to at least Vista (if not XP SP3, I don't recall off hand) will provide you with exactly what you're asking for though: browseable point-in-time snapshots of your files/folders.

    One of the things that piqued my interest in MS Data Protection Manager was that it would keep 15-minute snapshots of "covered" systems, both servers and workstations, and those snapshot backups snapped directly into the "previous versions" tab on the files. It allowed our users to recover old copies of things often enough at the site we deployed it at. It was still a pain in the ass product though... :P

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
  31. Re:find & diff by hobarrera · · Score: 2

    Why don't you try "--link-dest". It's pseudo-incremental, that is: unchanged files are hardlinked to the previous backup, meaning that there's no space or bandwidth consumption for unchanged files, but each day's replica is a full backup.

  32. Re:find & diff by nullchar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just curious, why do you require access time? I set 'noatime' on all partitions.