Sticky 

backups

*n3wjack's world in pixels 7:47pm, 4 July 2006
Currently I'm using an old PC of mine as a (local) network backup location and use a little homemade script to robocopy files I really really really don't want to be loosing.

I'm looking for something more sofisticated though, but still lightweight (and Windows native if possible) to do some sort of an incremental network backup.

I read this thing about an rsync + cygwin combo to do something like this in a computer mag, but using a fake-linux environment to copy on a native Windows system is something that smells a bit fishy for something as vital as a backup innit?

So who's taking them and what are you using to do it?

Share your geek setups folks, I'm sure we can all learn something new in here :)
egorgry 12 years ago
Synctoy I don't know why this is not in XP by default. Iuse it to sync up my movies and itunes library to my media PC. It works great. I hope you find it usefull.
second flock [deleted] 12 years ago
Nothing wrong with cygwin, I use it on several production servers as a more powerful replacment to DOS. It does a lot of stuff for us as well.

Just my 2 pence.
I read cygwin can't handle some NTFS native functionality, such as alternative data streams, which is why I refrain from using it.

Any idea how cygwin handles stuff like that from experience perhaps?
second flock [deleted] 12 years ago
Sadly no, I can't comment on that.
egorgry 12 years ago
Cygwin is the ubber geek complicated way to do what you want. I personaly don't like cygwin I'm a *nix purist I use native linux, hpux, and, solaris at work and I've been using linux for over 8 yrs at home so I'm not trying to discount rsync, rsync is an amazing tool but I wouldn't trust it with cygwin in the way you want to use it. Besides I don't think cygwin is a production level tool. I think of it as reverse wine in some ways, a cool hack, but I really don't see a use for it when there are other solutions available.

Xiol uses it for the shell and the cmd line tools which is, like he said, a great DOS replacement. I've used it to set up ssh server on my XP box at work so I wouldn't have to deal with ftp anymore. It works 100% of the time but I would not put it into production (not that they let us unix geeks touch the windows boxes ;-) )

by all means play with it if you want to learn how it works after all that is the nature of hacking. but it sounds like you want a reliable solution that is simple to setup, maintain, and troubleshoot. WinXp has a lot of free options for sync tools.
Grant Mitchell PRO 12 years ago
Well, cygwin does get used in production environments in many large companies (from personal experience, where I work currently it is used on some of the monitoring stations to extend the functionality of the windows PCs), so a lot of people do consider it a production level tool. I also don't think you have much to worry about if you're only using cygwin to run rsync. It's not rocket science, and isn't using any bleeding edge functionality. As for it not supporting streams, probably doesn't... I haven't tried it yet, however, are you really using streams? Most MS software doesn't support streams!

Just my oppinion.

-
Grant
second flock [deleted] 12 years ago
Just like to clear up that while we do primarily use it as a replacement for DOS, this is on many production servers, including primary domain controllers.

Cygwin is involved in many critical parts of our infrastructure and does hold quite a bit of the place together! IMO it is production-ready - after all, the *nix tools underneath it are!
egorgry 12 years ago
That is just my opinion plus I work in financial for a global fortune 500 company so things are very strict and controlled here and maybe that has an influence on me. My advise is keep it simple and there is a less of a chance of failure and less factors for troubleshooting in the event of failure. So why set up a cygwin env to run a tool that windows can do with a native application? It may not be rocket science but it's more complex then running an exe and setting up a scedule.
Grant Mitchell PRO 12 years ago
Egorgry,

While I understand your point of view in some respects, I'm affraid I also have to disagree.

It's not really any more complex than running an exe, cygwin isn't anything magical, it's a set of windows executables and libraries. It is a collection of apps compiled on windows (therefor windows native) that take advantage of a dll that emulates a linux api.

It's not like other windows apps don't use dll's to utilise their own api's.

Also being a unix geek for a large multinational financial company (a Global 500), I am painfully aware of the controls, and I can totally understand why people may not like to put it in production! You are right that in those environments you've got to be careful (in a "your job depends on it" sort of way ;), however we do use it sucessfully, so it can be done, and it is stable.

That being said, you'd probably be better off installing a standard windows app if your not that familiar with un*x, and if you are familliar with un*x, why are you running windows!?

-
Grant
egorgry 12 years ago
"if you are familliar with un*x, why are you running windows!?"

Best question so far. :)
1. Games
2. someone gave me a media PC and I'm too lazy to install Mythtv

otherwise is all linux at home and all *nix at work.

I Agree with you to some degree but I think *njwip just want to set up something simple an reliable. As to why he needs windows is anyones guess. I know synctoy works, my mom could set it up, and it has never let me down.

I'm sorry about your job position. Sarbanes Oxley + ignorant auditore have beaten me to a bloody pulp.
lol,
this thread is quicky going into a win vs *nix direction :)

Anyway, I'm sure cygwin is good, so many people wouldn't be using it otherwise, but as said before, there are plenty of native windows tools around that can do the trick just as good. And I do have more trust in those. Besides, I hate having to install yet another environment just to run a single executable...
And the fact that it does not support NTFS 100% makes me kinda nervous... geeky-controle-freak nervous.

I'll stick with Robocopy for the moment.

Oh, and the reason why I'm not using a *nix OS instead of the dreade M$ Windows one? Well, I'm sorta seriously used to it, and it always feels kinda awkward whenever I try a *nix distro. It all behaves just a bit different.
Besides that, which I could overcome in time of course, there's the fact that I love making music on my PC, and that for one, isn't something that *nix is up to par with just yet.
There's plently of free tools around for the Windows platform to sculpt some phat beats with, but on *nix it's still a slim picking.

For multimedia Windows still pwnz I guess.
second flock [deleted] 12 years ago
Last time I'll mention cygwin on this thread as it has gotten well off topic, but being that cygwin is for all intents and purposes Windows native it does have 100% support for NTFS - maybe you're thinking about Linux, which can't write to it.

NTFS/Windows command line tools, e.g. cacls, can be run through cygwin as well - so you can leverage the power of Bash with the... er, tools of Windows!
egorgry 12 years ago
It's all good. This is good geek talk. Ironicly my boss just asked me about using rsync on from unix to windows. :)
Groups Beta