Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Suggestions for backup scheme?

["J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org>]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 4:35:34 PM CET Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2024-02-05, Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 04/02/2024 15:48, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >> OK I see. That's a bit different than what I'm doing.  I'm backing up
> >> a specific set of directory trees from a couple different
> >> filesystems. There are large portions of the "source" filesystems that
> >> I have no need to back up.  And within those directory trees that do
> >> get backed up there are also some excluded subtrees.
> > 
> > But my scheme still works here. The filesystem I'm snapshotting is the
> > backup. As such, it only contains the stuff I want backed up, copied
> > across using rsync.
> > 
> > There's nothing stopping me running several rsyncs from the live system,
> > from several different partitions, to the backup partition.
> 
> Ah! Got it. That's one of the things I've been trying to figure out
> this entire thread, do I need to switch home and root to ZFS to take
> advantage of its snapshot support for backups? In the case you're
> describing the "source" filesystem(s) can be anything. It's only the
> _backup_ filesystem that needs to be ZFS (or similar).

If you want to use snapshots, the filesystem will need to support it. (either 
LVM or ZFS). If you only want to create snapshots on the backupserver, I 
actually don't see much benefit over using rsync.

> If (like rsnapshot/rsync's hard-link scheme) ZFS snapshots are normal
> directory trees that can be "browsed" with normal filesystem tools,
> that would be ideal. [I'll do some googling...]

ZFS snapshots can be accessed using normal tools and can even be exposed over 
NFS mounts making it super easy to find the files again.

They are normally not visible though, you need to access them specifically 
using "/filesystem/path/.zfs/snapshot"

--
Joost