Internet Problem

[rbmrtn]

rsync is a great tool and is part of a unix(linux) system out of the box. Most implementation for windows are paid software ( even though rsync itself is GPL ) and need additional support installed.

Synctoy is available from Download SyncToy 2.1 from Official Microsoft Download Center , and is close to rsync. I use it on windows systems for rsync functions.

FreeFileSync is another cross platform with gui FreeFileSync | SourceForge.net

rsync is essentially a beefed up copy program. It makes copies of specified files/folders and only copies the changes as required.

 

[TromboneAl]

All these files are in ONE PLACE (times as many separate backups you want to make). Like I said, "Directory structure and everything 'looks' just like the source."

So everything goes in on the first run, additions are made with each incremental run. Your deleted file would still be there, it doesn't delete anything (unless you specify that). There is no 'going back to different backups'. It's simple, real simple. IOW, it is always a 'full backup'.

rsync is open source, very stable, and supported on just about everything.

-ERD50

Sounds good. Concerning the procedures ...

Let's say that each week I modify MyFile.txt and each week I do an incremental backup.

You're saying all the all the data is in one place. When I bring up rsync and want to restore one of those MyFile.txt files, what does it display, and how do I choose one of the middle versions to restore?

Thanks.

 

[ERD50]

Sounds good. Concerning the procedures ...

Let's say that each week I modify MyFile.txt and each week I do an incremental backup.

You're saying all the all the data is in one place. When I bring up rsync and want to restore one of those MyFile.txt files, what does it display, and how do I choose one of the middle versions to restore?

Thanks.

You are still over-thinking this.There is no 'restore' process. I won't use any backup that requires a 'restore' process. I was burned by that once (some chicken-egg deal with the restore software needing to be updated and I couldn't do it with my limping system), and I won't expose myself to that again.

Your backup is always a 'full backup'. Like I said, it just is a copy of the directories you want backed up. Just go into the backup, find the file on that drive in the exact place it would be on your source drive, and copy it over. Simple, simple, simple. You don't use rsync to restore the file, you just use your file browser.

Like rbmrtn said, it is just a beefed up copy program.

Now, the one 'gotcha' in your case is (at least the way I use mine), is that a newer
MyFile.txt file would over-write the old MyFile.txt file on the backup. There might be options to auto-replace with a filename(1) copy, I'll take a look. This isn't an issue for me, for anything that I update that I really care about, I'm rigorous in adding a v001, v002, v003 suffix to the file name. I suppose you could get burned if a file got corrupted, and over-wrote the old one? That's pretty rare, and I suppose the answer is an occasional archive.

This option might do that, I'll test it out later:

-b, --backup

-ERD50

 

[Lsbcal]

...
You're saying all the all the data is in one place. When I bring up rsync and want to restore one of those MyFile.txt files, what does it display, and how do I choose one of the middle versions to restore?
...

You might look into version control software if you've got some document that you need this level of historical access.

 

[ERD50]

...

This option might do that, I'll test it out later:

-b, --backup

-ERD50

OK, I tested "-b" option with rsync, it does work... kinda.

To test, I made a change to a file (FileA.txt) w/o updating the name. Rsync did as it should, it copied the new, but first renamed the old to FileA.txt~

But... if I do it again, the FileA.txt~ gets replaced, IOW, this only gives you one generation back. Better than nothing I guess. And I guess it does protect against the odd chance of a little used file being corrupted. For it to change again, I would have had to have opened it and changed it, and I'd probably be aware it was corrupted, and go to the previous gen backup in that case.


But I'd agree with Lsbcal, if versions are important to your work (and you can't count on doing it manually), use some forced version-ing SW.

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

With regular backups, all stored, you have an ad hoc versioning system. Since it's rare to need a file from a particular date, that's good enough for me.

With any document that gets modified regularly, there is a great advantage to being able to go back and get that file as it existed on a particular date.

 

[TromboneAl]

I've figured out a few things about backing up to the cloud, and I'll start a new topic on that.