Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
It is a full backup.  Hardlinks save space -- but the file is still there. No file deltas in sight. It leverages rsync --link-dest to perform full copies, hardlinking files to the dest folder if available.
It's not a matter of how easy is it, is a matter of how much of your hard drive do you want to use storing the same file hundreds of times (when it hasn't been changed -- the modified date is still the same).
Once you have it setup (you can schedule it automatically), it creates a snapshots folder that contains timestamped backup folders -- not zipped storage -- which can be easily browsed through the file explorer and you can copy the folder elsewhere and zip it and do whatever and and and...
You are by no means required to use it, or course. I just thought I'd make sure you know what kind of option it is.  |
My personal preference for backing up my library is to have multiple copies. I don't mind having a tb or two dedicated to my library and backups but that's me. I am a horder of the first degree of my ebooks. Thank goodness they don't take up the physical space my old paperback collection used to.
Having lost my electronic library in the past (back when it was text, html or pdb) due to drive failure and unreadable backup when my zip drives were not reliable and failed I became compulsive about backups. The problem with anything other than a full backup is the ability to restore quickly if there is a complete system failure and I like to rar it rather than just have a copy of the library because it is the library at that time so if a book turns up corrupted at a later date or if I somehow delete something in error I will be able to find it. It's purely a personal quirk.
For me it is a case of thanking the gods of technology for cheap usb drives
.