Talk:Rsync Backup

From DreamHost
Jump to: navigation, search

Backup policy

The backup policy link still links to the old knowledgebase. This needs pointing to the correct wiki page. Mark Quinn

This seems to have been taken care of some time ago already. Probably this comment could be removed now.

Another Method..

I wanted to have my backups be initiated by my server at dreamhost, and not the backup machine. This way my cronjob runs on the dreamhost server, connects to my box at home, and rsyncs the backup.

This work perfectly for me.

rsync and TOS clarification - Jeff's Edit: A question and a suggestion

I understand the reason for Jeff's deletion of the "Automated Backup via rsync" stuff, in light of the recent DreamHost TOS clarification, but I'm wondering if, in the heat of the moment, we are overlooking uses of rsync-driven automated backups that would *not* be a violation of the TOS?

For example, while Dreamhost has .snapshot automated backups, I can see a legitimate "web site hosting" related use of rsync to back up a development, or local "staging", environment for a site that is hosted, or under development for hosting, on DreamHost. For a traveling developer, possibly doing "roadshows" or site visits, this seems to be a useful, fairly "easy on the resources", and reasonable use of some storage space that could literally "save the day" if the developer's laptop takes a crap on the road.

I don't want to re-add anything that has been removed by any DH staffer without discussion (think "pointless and counter-productive reversion tiff" here), but I think this section could be re-factored to provide some degree of help/guidance for some *acceptable* rsync usage while *still* clarifying the TOS and making it clear that "DH is not an off-site backukp repository for your PC". -- Rlparker 00:04, 18 October 2007 (PDT)

Just for background reference, here is the pertinent diff:

rsync 3.0.x for backup/

I've been using the backup service for some time with great satisfaction, but it falls on its face once very large file lists come into play. After some very long troubleshooting the DH tech realized that I was hitting the resource limiters because rsync was just going crazy. This is because the server runs a pre-3.0 rsync that lacks the huge performance gains of the current release. My tech did not know details on plans to upgrade the version but said that he would suggest it to Infrastructure. It's been two months now (June 2009 - August 2009) and no word, and the server is still running the old version. End of story.

Begin question. What's the hesitation here? The newer version certainly benefits me because I can back stuff up that I cannot otherwise, and there was a fire alarm today that refreshed the fear of data loss in me. But it's a huge boon for the server, taking significantly fewer cpu/ram resources. I can't get a clear answer from anyone as to why the upgrade doesn't happen, which says to me that there is no good reason except that backup just isn't high on the priority list of Things to Care About. I know that rsh won't let me run my own binary because I've already tried. You've clearly got security under control, and 3.0 falls back on the older protocol gracefully if the client isn't running 3.0, so why not? I'm happy to shut up if there's a good reason, especially one that I can learn from.