[Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source

Kristopher Zentner boxbackup@fluffy.co.uk
Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:46:11 -0700

Quoting Mr R G Shepherd <rob@robshepherd.net>:

> Kristopher Zentner wrote:
>> My media server backup that has all my cds (which are mostly aac/mp3) and
>> movies, etc is what's puzzling me:
> I know this is completely OT but is boxbackup the best choice of 
> backup solution for this type of client? I see the point of box 
> backup for many potential circumstances but I fail to see what this 
> setup requires from box backup.

It might not be. I really just want a backup solution with a 
client/server set,
and a decent command line for retrieval is nice too. I could just use rsync
sure but I'd like to keep my other servers that have other types of 
data all on
one backup solution for ease of use.

I tried bacula earlier but it's too tape centric and is really a pain with
trying to get pool recycling to work with scheduled full backups on a regular
basis. Boxbackup is hard drive centric and MUCH easier which is why i took to

> Would a weekly rsync not be more appropriate unless you really need 
> to encrypt your mp3s of course...

This is a good idea and one I may take to if this problem is 
unresolved. Like I
said, ideally I'd like one all encompassing solution, but rsync for a majority
of the media (which won't change much) and boxbackup for configs/logs/etc may
be better.

> I would have thought an archive procedure onto removeable media would 
> be a better choice. But then I guess some youngsters don't have the 
> benefit of an acetate/vinyl hard copy of their entertainment media... 
> re reading your post I see you have taken your audio off CD's - why 
> increase the media requirements for these?

One word: iPod.

That, and I have a computer acting as a media center so I don't have to deal
with loading and unloading plastic. It's very nice not having to go through
about 500 cds to get what I want. Backups are nice to have of all this of
course since a drive failure, or inadvertent rm renders a lot of encoding
effort lost.

> No need for a massive flamefest, I'm just a little curious.... :)

No offense taken at all. I appreciate your ideas, thanks!