Pushing hard-linked backups

Eric S. Johansson esj at harvee.org
Sun Dec 30 05:07:47 GMT 2007

Matt McCutchen wrote:
> Eric,
> 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 mailing list