Pushing hard-linked backups
Eric S. Johansson
esj at harvee.org
Sun Dec 30 05:07:47 GMT 2007
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> Sorry for the slow response.
no problem. You're the one who's doing me a favor so take the time you need.
> Yes, encryption done with --source-filter would work essentially that
> way. The downside compared to something like duplicity is that the
> backup host gets to see everything except the file data (i.e., file
> names, sizes, times, and attributes) and, unless you take additional
> precautions, can manipulate the stored data by mixing and matching
> different encrypted versions of files.
yeah. I keep forgetting that. I think that backup should always be push so
that all of these confidentiality issues can be handled appropriately.
>> rsync/snapshot to trusted host and backing up encfs image of backup directory
>> may be a better solution
> Well, if you have the Linux intermediary that would be necessary for
> EncFS, you might prefer duplicity instead.
I have come to appreciate the value of walking a filesystem and pulling a file
out when it needs replacing. Anything that requires me to create a god awful
command line to extract the file is not fun. Remember, I've got bum hands, I
use speech recognition, and navigating with a GUI is easier than typing
especially what I can say "mouseclick" instead of something completely
More information about the rsync