Re: btrfs send and an existing backup

[Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]

On 2014-11-20 09:10, Duncan wrote:
> Bardur Arantsson posted on Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:17:52 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> If you have no other backups, I would really recommend that you *don't*
>> use btrfs for your backup, or at least have a *third* backup which isn't
>> on btrfs -- there are *still* problems with btrfs that can potentially
>> wreck your backup filesystem. (Although it's obviously less likely if
>> the external HDD will only be connected occasionally.)
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, btrfs is becoming more and more stable, but I
>> wouldn't trust it with my *only* backup, especially if also running
>> btrfs on the backed-up filesystem.
>
> This.
>
> My working versions and first backups are btrfs.  My secondary backups
> are reiserfs (my old filesystem of choice, which has been very reliable
> for me), just in case both the btrfs versions bite the dust due to a bug
> in btrfs itself.
>
Likewise, except I use compressed, encrypted tarballs stored on both 
Amazon S3 and Dropbox.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2455 bytes --]