[Dirvish] Dirvish and Strato Hi-Drive?
Brian_Dorling at t-online.de
Sat Jan 7 12:10:23 UTC 2012
On 01/05/2012 10:54 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:
> Johannes Kastl wrote:
>> On 04.01.12 16:54 brian wrote:
>>> The advantage over using rsync directly is that the rsync would
>>> take a long time, sending all the data over the WAN. This way the
>>> rsync is over quickly and dropbox forwards the stuff in the
>>> background as fast as the WAN supports.
>> I'm sorry, but I'll have to contradict you there, please correct me if
>> I'm wrong.
> Quite apart from the fact that it doesn't really matter whether rsync or
> dropbox sits in the background making a transfer in the first place, so
> the claimed advantage appears to be non-existent to start with! JMHO.
> And rsync doesn't impose terms and conditions on you. (My employer
> forbids dropbox usage for that reason, for example).
> Cheers, Dave
> Dirvish mailing list
> Dirvish at dirvish.org
>>And rsync doesn't impose terms and conditions on you
Thats a good reason I guess, I often wonder about the security ramifications
of having a permanent connection open through my firewall to Dropbox.
Although I guess its no worse than a browser session (can you get worse than
that?), and I assume that having all permissions set correctly will help.
BTW I have a CLI connection from my 24x7 server to dropbox. So I dont
care at all how long it takes to sync a file up to dropbox.
>>If you are using rsync or dirvish, it should just copy the pieces
>>across the internet, that have been changed. So it would not transfer
>>whole files just because of one bit that has changed.
>>I have not tried to use dropbox with hardlinked files, but I assume
>>that dropbox would treat all files as separate, and will transfer each
>>and everyone of them to the server (taking up time and space there).
Never thought of the hardlinking problem. That may be a showstopper.
>>Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I guess its just different POVs.
>>So, dropbox is working with simple files, but using it to store
>>dirvish backups online seems to be losing dirvish's advantages.
I guess here it depends on whether just rsync or rsync and hardlinks
are supported by the online service.
I guess my way of looking at it is that the backup is done quickly by
that allows me to get my backups done as the clients I backup may not be
active for very long. Sending a lot of data across the WAN means that the
client will need to be active for much longer. Having said that, if only
data has changed then there isn't much to send.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dirvish