On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> wrote:
On 30/08/17 10:58 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I say not rpm for backups.
So:
CPIO for backups is OK. CPIO plus metadata on where yto unpack it and scripts to tidly up and mechanisms to deal with possible overrights when doing a restore is not OK.
Can you please explain what it is about RPM that makes it NOT an 'backup'?
Let me introduce the term "Archival Backup". An archival backup in my mind is one designed to still be readable a decade or more after it is made. Most DVDs don't have a 10-year or longer expected lifetime. Kodak used to sell CDs made with gold as the medium that was sandwiched in the plastic. It was intended for Archival Backup purposes. The idea was that even if the plastic halves came unglued, the gold would not oxidate, so it was a far more reliable medium. There are other archival backup solutions. I often have seen lawyers simply put data on a USB drive and put that in a safe. I'm not sure that is a great solution, but it certainly is one that is used frequently. I personally take important large data sets, then put them in the equivalent of a large segmented tar archive. I put a copy of the segments on at least 2 drives. I also record the hash of each of the segments. Then, if I have to use that data in the future, I verify the hashes. I have had occasions where I had hash disagrees on both copies, but fortunately just on a few of the segment files and I was able to piece together a full set without any hash disagrees. I haven't gone to triple redundancy in general. But arguably it would be smart. Also, hash disagrees are far less common with drives made in the last 5 years than they were with drives made around 2005. I remember a lot of issues with hash disagrees in the 2005-2010 timeframe. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org