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

Oliver Hoffmann oliver at g.dom.de
Thu Mar 17 15:25:44 CET 2016


Ah, danke!



On 17 March 2016 at 14:53, Schlomo Schapiro <schlomo at schapiro.org> wrote:

> ​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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160317/1536dc37/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the rear-users mailing list