rsync over nfs or rsync protocol

[Jerry McAllister]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Jason C. Wells wrote:

> On 09/23/11 14:11, Jerry McAllister wrote:
> >Why would you interject NFS in the middle of it? ////jerry
> There would be no middle.  I would run rsyncd or nfsd, but not both.

Ah, I get it.  In that case, I think rsync is probably more useful
than NFS because it can check and only copy modified files.

Alternatively, if you are doing backups to recover from system
failures - such as a disk crash, you would probably prefer dump(8)/restore(8)
They can write to a file on the other machine, can do "change dumps"
and they preserve all the needed UNIX attributes.   

I actually do a dump piped to a restore on another disk as a convenient 
backup to handle my all too frequent cases of fumble fingers and sleep
deprived bad thinking where I need to quickly get back a file I mangled, 
deleted or need to start over on.   Restore can easily pull single files
or directory trees from a dump file as well.  But having it already
pre-restored makes it easier -- and only doubles my disk use - disk is
cheap isn't it.

////jerry    
  
> 
> Jason