IThe --backup option is great for creating "rolling full" backups
which
look exactly like the backed up tree except for the existence of the
backup directory
Here's how a Linux backup directory tree looks as created by backup
utility bung's bu_rsync script
+-- bin -> usr/bin
+-- boot
|?? +-- grub
+-- _Changed and deleted files
|?? +-- 2021
|?? +-- Jul
|?? |?? +-- 01 at 17:45
|?? |?? |?? +-- opt
|?? |?? |?? |?? +-- tomcat
|?? |?? |?? +-- root
|?? |?? |?? +-- var
|?? |?? |?? +-- backups
|?? |?? |?? +-- cache
|?? |?? |?? +-- lib
|?? |?? |?? +-- local
|?? |?? |?? +-- log
|?? |?? |?? +-- mail
|?? |?? |?? +-- spool
...
|?? |?? +-- 17 at 17:46
...
|?? |?? +-- 18 at 17:45
...
|?? +-- Jun
...
|?? +-- 29 at 17:45
...
|?? +-- 30 at 17:45
...
+-- dev
+-- etc
...
A "rolling full" backup is great to restore from for small
organisations
which do not do enough restores to be well practised because the backup
looks exactly like the source except for the additional "_Changed and
deleted files" directory.
Perfect point in time restores are not possible but adequate
approximations (point in time but with the possibility of some extra
files) can be done by restoring the last backup and then each of the
changed and deleted files sets until the latest set after the desired
point in time
On 19/07/2021 17:30, rsync-request at lists.samba.org
wrote:> I would like some feedback about the --backup option in rsync. Is
> it worth using it for backups, or should I just use rsync
> commands that just transfer files without the use of --backup
> option?
>
> -b, --backup????? make backups (see --suffix & --backup-dir)
> --backup-dir=DIR? make backups into hierarchy based in DIR
> --suffix=SUFFIX?? backup suffix (default ~ w/o --backup-dir)
>
> I am somewhat hesitant to use it because with the backup option,
> preexisting destination files are renamed as each file is
> transferred or deleted. It also says that previously backed-up
> files could get deleted.? Thusly I need some assistance
> understanding all the pros and cons.