<div>From what I understand `--backup-dir` uses a hierarchical backup. And `--suffix` appends the value</div><div>in `--suffix` to the end of each file.</div><div><br></div><div>What happens when one specifies both `--backup-dir` and `dest`. Is `--backup-dir` a replacement to <br></div><div>`dest`, or not ?</div><br><br><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 0.5em;border-left:1px #00f solid;padding-left:1em;">From: Charles <c@charlesmatkinson.org><br>
To: lisa-asket@perso.be;<br>
rsync@lists.samba.org<br>
Subject: Re: Utility of --backup<br>
Date: 20/07/2021 02:37:50 Europe/Paris<br>
<br>
> And let me do what you suggest. What is the difference, and is --backup<br>
> better than the other ?<br>
<br>
Only in conjunction with -backup-dir, for example<br>
<br>
--backup --backup-dir=_Changed and deleted files/2021/Jul/19@21:21<br>
<br>
The man page's entry for --backup suggests using it with either <br>
--backup-dir or --suffix<br>
<br>
On 19/07/2021 19:22, lisa-asket@perso.be wrote:<br>
> From: Charles via rsync <rsync@lists.samba.org><br>
> To: rsync@lists.samba.org<br>
> Subject: Re: Utility of --backup<br>
> Date: 19/07/2021 14:26:59 Europe/Paris<br>
> <br>
> >IThe --backup option is great for creating "rolling full" backups which<br>
> >look exactly like the backed up tree except for the existence of the<br>
> >backup directory<br>
> <br>
> I am not really understanding the "Rolling Full Backup". Suppose I have <br>
> a directory<br>
> and use `rsync -av --progress --log-file="$logfl" "$source" "$destin"`<br>
> <br>
> And let me do what you suggest. What is the difference, and is --backup <br>
> better than the other ?<br>
> <br>
> Would the command be<br>
> <br>
> rsync --backup -v --progress --log-file="$logfl" "$source" "$destin"<br>
> <br>
> >Here's how a Linux backup directory tree looks as created by backup<br>
> >utility bung's bu_rsync script<br>
> <br>
> +-- bin -> usr/bin<br>
> +-- boot<br>
> | +-- grub<br>
> +-- _Changed and deleted files<br>
> | +-- 2021<br>
> | +-- Jul<br>
> | | +-- 01@17:45<br>
> | | | +-- opt<br>
> | | | | +-- tomcat<br>
> | | | +-- root<br>
> | | | +-- var<br>
> | | | +-- backups<br>
> | | | +-- cache<br>
> | | | +-- lib<br>
> | | | +-- local<br>
> | | | +-- log<br>
> | | | +-- mail<br>
> | | | +-- spool<br>
> ...<br>
> | | +-- 17@17:46<br>
> ...<br>
> | | +-- 18@17:45<br>
> ...<br>
> | +-- Jun<br>
> ...<br>
> | +-- 29@17:45<br>
> ...<br>
> | +-- 30@17:45<br>
> ...<br>
> +-- dev<br>
> +-- etc<br>
> ...<br>
> <br>
> >A "rolling full" backup is great to restore from for small organisations<br>
> >which do not do enough restores to be well practised because the backup<br>
> >looks exactly like the source except for the additional "_Changed and<br>
> >deleted files" directory.<br>
> <br>
> >Perfect point in time restores are not possible but adequate<br>
> >approximations (point in time but with the possibility of some extra<br>
> >files) can be done by restoring the last backup and then each of the<br>
> >changed and deleted files sets until the latest set after the desired<br>
> >point in time<br>
> <br></blockquote>