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

Oliver Hoffmann oliver at g.dom.de
Tue Mar 22 16:43:24 CET 2016

Thank you. I'll try that.

Today I successfully migrated Debian 8 from a 10 years old laptop to
VMWare :)

I'll mention stuff like that in the article as well.



> With rear-1.18 release (build today at OpenSuSe Build Service) the newer
> SSD types are supported as we had an issue around that a few weeks ago.
> regards,
> Gratien
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:31:07 +0100, 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
>> <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto: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 list
>>>     rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
>>>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto:rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org>
>>     http://pikachu.3ti.be/mailman/listinfo/rear-users
> -- 
> Gratien D'haese
> IT3 Consultants bvba
> Vennestraat 15, B-2560 Nijlen
> _______________________________________________
> rear-users mailing list
> rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
> http://pikachu.3ti.be/mailman/listinfo/rear-users

More information about the rear-users mailing list