Openzfs carbon copy cloner archive1/4/2023 ![]() ![]()
You have to decide what extreme measures are justified for your data. You have to actually read all the data off the source disk, and either copy it all or at least calculate a secure checksum of files that are purported to be unchanged. If you're really worried about data corruption, don't rely on either of these tools. Openzfs carbon copy cloner archive software#Time Machine is better in that it tries to track changes to the actual data, but it still relies on the cooperation of the software and the reliability of the hardware. But if you're trying to protect against accidental or malicious corruption, it's not good enough. That's great as long as the changes were made on purpose by well-behaved software. There are of course infinite variations to choose from.Ĭhronosync (by default) uses file dates to detect changes. At least, until the backup drives start to fail on the shelf. That way, no matter how long it takes to notice, you can always go back to a version from before the corruption occurred. ![]() How likely is data corruption? When data corruption happens, how long will it take you to notice? How much unrecoverable data corruption are you willing to accept in the worst case?įor instance, if you fear that it might take you a very long time to notice data corruption, you might want to make a snapshot each month and store it permanently. To design a practical system for your needs, you have to make some assumptions. Time Machine is one such compromise: it records many versions (but not every single one), but it only saves them for a finite time (once the disk fills up), and the medium (a connected hard disk) is still vulnerable to accidental or malicious corruption. Unfortunately, that's not practical, so you have to compromise somewhere. The perfect solution is to record every change and every intermediate version, never erasing anything, on some medium that, once written, cannot be erased or changed. You want to add robustness to data corruption. Your scheme seems very robust to disk failures (because you have multiple copies) and local disasters (because you have a copy off-site). The key is to make a backup and leave it alone. As long as you're making regular updates to a given backup, you can't be absolutely certain that backup isn't getting corrupted. Perhaps a daily backup that's guaranteed to be current, a weekly backup that's less current, and maybe a monthly backup too. The traditional solution to this quandary is to introduce hierarchy. Many thanks for any pearls of wisdom / insights into what anyone else is doing in this regard. Is there any advantage / disadvantage to using Time Machine over Chronosync for incremental backups (anyone know how Chronosync arranges the data on a backup disc as opposed to a mirror (duplicate) as I currently do)? If so, which of the above strategies sound like the best plan or is there a better one?ģ. Downside being doubling storage requirements and extra time required.Ģ. Openzfs carbon copy cloner archive mac#Do one of the above but also on a seperate partition / disc have a duplicate synchronized by Chronosync as I currently do, this would effectively replicate what I do for my Mac HD. As above this would mean should the original disc die I'd need to use time machine to rebuild a copy rather than just plugging in one of the current duplicates.Ĭ. Use Time Machine to carry out an incremental backup of the original image file disc (I'm more used to how time machine carries out an incremental backup). would need to use Chronosync to rebuild a copy of the original disc as the backup would have multiple versions - not sure how Chronosync arranges these).ī. This would mean I had previous versions of files to go back to and should prevent disaster if originals became corrupted but would increase storage requirements and make it less easy to swap between original and backup discs for use in lightroom (I think. Openzfs carbon copy cloner archive archive#Using Chronosync, Backup incrementally instead of Mirroring and archive changed files. What I'm starting to wonder / get nervous about is if the original disc files became corrupted somehow but I didn't notice and carried out synchronization I might end up with all discs corrupted. Now, this means I have four exact copies of image files and it's easy to swap between them should one disc be lost,etc. ![]() For image files I store the originals on one hard drive and have this mirrored to three others (one off site) with Chronosync, deletions also mirrored and deleted files deleted immediately. After a bit of advice regarding image file backups.Ĭurrently for my Mac HD I use an external hard drive (x3, one off site) partitioned with a duplicate (bootable disc image) on one partition and a time machine archive on the other partition. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |