[rear-users] Article about ReaR in German Linux Magazin
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
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.
> 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,
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> rear-users mailing list
>>> rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
>>> <mailto:rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org>
>> rear-users mailing list
>> rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
>> <mailto:rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org>
> Gratien D'haese
> IT3 Consultants bvba
> Vennestraat 15, B-2560 Nijlen
> rear-users mailing list
> rear-users at lists.relax-and-recover.org
More information about the rear-users