Sorry, replied not replied-all. I don't do much email ok?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Srdjan Todorovic <todorovic.s(a)googlemail.com
> wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2009/2/4 Chris G <cl(a)isbd.net>:
> > I still don't think it addresses the problem, unless it's an
> > incremental backup. If someone breaks into 'my' machine (the machine
> > being backed up) then they can send rubbish data to overwrite the good
> > backups can't they? This is the specific possibility I'm trying to
> > protect myself against a bit.
>
This is the old replication argument - Replication produces hot backups for
failure, not backups for bad data. (and also other benefits..)
>
> Now that I remember, there was an article in one of the Linux Format
> issues where you could use Subversion to hold incremental, versioned,
> logged home directories.
>
> Anyone tried it in general? Anyone tried it specifically for this kind
> of backup setup?
> (or anyone tried other version control software (git?) for this?)
>
Me, I used a combination of SVN and Tortoise on windows to do "backups" of
all my files for quite a long time. The system is perfect for a "smallish
number of files" - that is my entire OS has something like 50k files in it,
I wouldnt want to commit the lot to SVN ;)
The idea is perfect because if I got a virus, that destroyed some files,
that would then get automatically backed up, I could just run back to a
particular date.
I'm not sure about the efficiency of this backup system though. If you have
a program that makes large changes to "binary working files" then you would
probably end up in troubles.
> Interesting thought. One problem would be that it's not automated (you
> would have to write a log)...
>
Not too difficult - I had a few shell scripts on cron and windows schedule
that ran.
>
> You can do ssh+svn:// so there might be a possibility of using ssh
> keys if you really wanted.
>
Which helps on the automatic scripting.