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 1337915815E for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:35:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 82593E2A05; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:35:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21029E29D3 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:35:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rXNU5-0007cc-Tq for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 16:35:41 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Suggestions for backup scheme? Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:35:34 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <8f5371a5-07af-456e-8517-cb9bb664fac4@youngman.org.uk> <17a2d820-4745-405d-844a-09e27184e56a@youngman.org.uk> User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) 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 X-Archives-Salt: e53056d5-1776-48c3-9994-81de59d3e3e6 X-Archives-Hash: 3548f02ff0987f1887f99939195aaf62 On 2024-02-05, Wols Lists 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 (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...] -- Grant