[rear-users] Article about ReaR in German Linux Magazin

Schlomo Schapiro schlomo at schapiro.org
Thu Mar 17 14:53:50 CET 2016


​Mit rear dump siehst Du die aktuell relevante Konfiguration. Schau Dir mal
die BACKUP_PROG_EXCLUDE Variable an, die dürfte Dir helfen.​

On 17 March 2016 at 14:32, Oliver Hoffmann <oliver at g.dom.de> wrote:

> Hi Schlomo,
>
> all right. I might do that later on.
>
> Could you just tell me whether there is a file exclusion option while
> doing mkbackup?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oliver
>
> On 17 March 2016 at 13:31, Schlomo Schapiro <schlomo at schapiro.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> this might be a bug. If you want to have it checked then please open a
>> GitHub issue.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Schlomo
>>
>> On 14 March 2016 at 02:56, oh <oliver at g.dom.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Schlomo,
>>>
>>>
>>> thank you for this clarification. Now mkrescue and mkbackup are
>>> perfectly clear :)
>>>
>>> Just two more things I was wondering about while testing ReaR on a USB
>>> stick. If I use NETFS is there a way to cut out files/folders? Something
>>> like the exclude option of rsync.
>>>
>>> I used rear mkbackup on quite a new laptop. It has a 128GB SSD running
>>> debian stretch. With that I booted the rescue system on a rather old laptop
>>> with 80 GB HD. Everything should fit as the source system has less than 16
>>> GB in total. Problem is the partitioning of the disk. It stops with: parted
>>> invalid token: logical. I changed things in layout/diskrescue.sh but to no
>>> avail.
>>> I had a look with parted and found two primary partitions which made no
>>> sense. I would expect that the script would suggest something useful and
>>> ask for approval. This is not really an issue. I was just playing around
>>> but I could provide you with more details.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> ​Hi Oli,​
>>>
>>> On 11 March 2016 at 17:40, Oliver Hoffmann <oliver at g.dom.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> something I need to get straight about mkrescue. If I just do a rear
>>>> format and mkrescue creating a USB stick and boot it up then I would be
>>>> dropped to the rescue shell.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ​I would call it "boot the rescue system", but yes.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> If I just do a rear rescue then the result would be a naked system as it
>>>> was before but without any data or even extra binaries, won't it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You still have to run rear recover to see any action. ​Probably doing
>>> that exactly as you wrote will actually wipe your system, reformat the
>>> disks and prompt you to restore the files into /mnt/local.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Means this is only useful if I try to repair the system rather than
>>>> carry out a rescue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ​Yes, you could use the rescue system to repair a system. However, that
>>> is not the main purpose.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In other words in most of the cases mkbackup is what one wants, isn't
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> ​That depends on the value of the BACKUP variable in your config (see
>>> rear dump​).
>>>
>>> If you use one of the internal backup methods like BACKUP=NETFS then you
>>> are correct and users should use rear mkbackup. The difference between rear
>>> mkrescue and rear mkbackup is that rear mkrescue will only create the
>>> rescue image while rear mkbackup will both create the rescue image and also
>>> create a new backup.
>>>
>>> ​If you use an external backup method, e.g. BACKUP=TSM, then rear
>>> mkbackup and rear mkrescue​ do exactly the same: Create a new rescue image.
>>> In this mode the assumption is that your external backup system already has
>>> a full (or relevant) backup of your system. Running rear recover in the
>>> rescue system will then wipe the system, recreate the partitions and file
>>> systems and instrument your external backup software (e.g. TSM) to actually
>>> restore the files.
>>>
>>> To understand this distinction you need to see the original purpose for
>>> which we created ReaR: Doing bare metal disaster recovery with backup
>>> software that does not support this. Or where the bare metal addon is very
>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> I wrote rear 1.0 in 10 days for a client who had Galaxy as his backup
>>> software. The bare metal addon of that backup software was sold at about
>>> 1000€ per server. With the amount of servers that the client wanted to
>>> cover (about 50), contracting me to write rear was actually much cheaper
>>> for them :-) And rear worked much better than the proprietary bare metal
>>> solution because it supported all custom drivers and worked fully automated.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Schlomo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rear-users mailing listrear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.orghttp://pikachu.3ti.be/mailman/listinfo/rear-users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rear-users mailing list
>>> rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
>>> http://pikachu.3ti.be/mailman/listinfo/rear-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rear-users mailing list
>> rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
>> http://pikachu.3ti.be/mailman/listinfo/rear-users
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rear-users mailing list
> rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
> http://pikachu.3ti.be/mailman/listinfo/rear-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pikachu.3ti.be/pipermail/rear-users/attachments/20160317/feb82ba5/attachment.html>


More information about the rear-users mailing list