From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C35415815E for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 23:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96DD8E2A35; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 23:17:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk (smtp.hosts.co.uk [85.233.160.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40164E2A11 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 23:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host86-152-228-249.range86-152.btcentralplus.com ([86.152.228.249] helo=[192.168.1.99]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1rXUga-00000000AmE-5n8k for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:17:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 23:17:03 +0000 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Suggestions for backup scheme? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <4553703.LvFx2qVVIh@iris> Content-Language: en-GB From: Wols Lists In-Reply-To: <4553703.LvFx2qVVIh@iris> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: cc846488-81dd-42c9-9107-52ab0551d0f8 X-Archives-Hash: c35e4b8846e737ad33388eb31606b0d3 On 06/02/2024 16:19, J. Roeleveld wrote: >> 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. Because snapshotting uses so much less space? So much so that, for normal usage, I probably have no need to delete any snapshots, for YEARS? Okay, space is not an expensive commodity, and you don't want too many snapshots, simply because digging through all those snapshots would be a nightmare, but personally I wouldn't use a crude rsync simply because I prefer to be frugal in my use of resources. Cheers, Wol