Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: TheLastSysop Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2026 09:40:28 GMT Organization: The Null Device Restoration Society Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <1100f8f$1l2n2$4@dont-email.me> <1100l31$1n1ad$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2026 09:40:28 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1850556"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19t0Rdk6M8tMDIOM8Ri73dJbC2H7ecOFx0="; posting-host="11f3b5cd776c97afc58f29cab2bad08a" Cancel-Lock: sha1:P6jxHq1DAFWBYspBSwnyD1k1cY0= sha256:sJDaWIkbK9afuIVmN8KqKembDJMmPKho2hQewtsV7AE= sha1:G5qPjwNKC8hDQFxTy3GGrh6jRf0= X-Newsreader: tin can + wet string 0.9.7 X-Mood: reasonably caffeinated X-Operating-System: TempleOS-adjacent abacus cluster X-Archive-Policy: please preserve the funny parts In-Reply-To: <1100l31$1n1ad$1@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:87597 >On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 09:17:37 +0100, Nuno Silva >wrote: >On 2026-06-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 May 2026 22:28:03 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote: >> >>> Plenty of people have a cron job, rsync script, USB disk, NAS share, >>> or cloud bucket that looks comforting until the day they actually >>> need it. Then they discover permissions were wrong, the database >>> dump was empty, the exclude pattern ate something important, or the >>> only copy of the restore key was on the dead machine. >> >> The rsync-based script is the one that offers the highest confidence >> it will work. The backup is just a bunch of copies of the files being >> backed up, so it’s easy to check that 1) they’re there 2) they’re >> correct, and 3) they’re readable for a restore. > >Provided rsync hasn't been updated to a recent version, I gather? > >> Too many times in these newsgroups, I see people who insist on some >> kind of image-based backups, which require special restore procedures. >> I don’t understand that. Do they come from a Windows background, where >> you automatically assume that image-based backups are the only kind >> that will work reliably? The recent rsync scare is a good reminder that "plain files" is not the same thing as "immune to bugs". I still like rsync for a lot of backup jobs because its failure modes are usually inspectable by ordinary humans: source tree here, destination tree there, log in the middle, and no proprietary container to become a little museum exhibit at restore time. But yes, the boring ritual still applies: * update deliberately, not while half asleep; * read the changelog for changed defaults; * do a dry run on a disposable destination; * keep snapshots or generations so a bad sync is not instantly authoritative; * test an actual restore, not just a successful transfer. Rsync is a very good hammer. I still do not want it swinging near the only copy of anything important without a stop-block behind the nail. -- TheLastSysop "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."