Rdiff-backup VS micro-editor

For starters it has a tendency to paint itself into a corner on ENOSPC situations. You won't even be able to perform a restore if a backup was started but unfinished because it ran out of space. There's this process of "regressing" the repo [0] which must occur before you can do practically anything after an interrupted/failed backup. What this actually must do is undo the partial forward progress, by performing what's effectively a restore of the files that got pushed into the future relative to the rest of the repository, which requires more space. Unless you have/can create free space to do these things, it can become wedged... and if it's a dedicated backup system where you've intentionally filled disks up with restore points, you can find yourself having to throw out backups just to make things functional again - even ability to restore is affected.

That's the most obvious glaring problem, beyond that it's just kind of garbage in terms of the amount of space and time it requires to perform restores. Especially restores of files having many reverse-differential increments leading back to the desired restore point. It can require 2X the file's size in spare space to assemble the desired version, while it iteratively reconstructs all the intermediate versions in arriving at the desired version. Unless someone fixed this since I last had to deal with it, which is possible.

Source: Ages ago I worked for a startup[1] that shipped a backup appliance originally implemented by contractors using rdiff-backup. Writing a replacement that didn't suck but was compatible with rdiff-backup's repos consumed several years of my life...

There are far better options in 2024.

[0] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/blob/master/src...

[1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/axcient

and that should install the latest version, rdiff-backup-2.2.4-2.el8.x86_64.rpm. This is all described in the rdiff-backup README file.

Rdiff-backup - close to what you do currently but at least provides versioning. Based on rsync

as in just a copy of your files? This I would barely consider a backup, more of just a mirror from a point in time. What're you missing by doing this? versions of files, deduplication, and encryption (last one being very important for the best kind of backups, which should be off-site). Just because it's not files doesn't mean it's proprietary. Proprietary would mean secret and undocumented. There are many great options. Borg is my favorite but Kopia is probably better if you use windows, urbackup is an option if you want centralized management of backups and rdiff-backup is if you want something kinda what you have currently but adding versioning but lacks deduplication and encryption.

If you're comfortable with the cli and you want to have your backup in a plain file format with some incremental backups, there's rdiffbackup. It uses rsync under the hood and has worked quite well for me.

Rdiff Backup - Reverse differential backups that uses rsync, linking, and can tunnel via ssh. You get a full current backup with increments available to restore any version of the file with minimal storage space used.

borg is great. we've been using it for the past 3 years to archive hundreds of file-level backups of servers, database dumps and VM images. average size of each borg repo is few GB but there are few outliers up to few hundreds of GB.

borg replaced https://rdiff-backup.net/ for us and gave:

Robocopy is great if you don't have access to rsync. If rsync via WSL2 for instance is an option, I'd personally go with rdiffbackup.

To see more screenshots of micro, showcasing some of the default color schemes, see here.

Not sure these are really popular, but I cannot resist advertising a few utilities written in Go that I regularly use in my daily workflow:

- gdu: a NCDU clone, much faster on SSD mounts [1]

- duf: a `df` clone with a nicer interface [2]

- massren: a `vidir` clone (simpler to use but with fewer options) [3]

- gotop: a `top` clone [4]

- micro: a nice TUI editor [5]

Building this kind of tools in Go makes sense, as the executables are statically compiled and are thus easy to install on remote servers.

[1]: https://github.com/dundee/gdu

[2]: https://github.com/muesli/duf

[3]: https://github.com/laurent22/massren

[4]: https://github.com/xxxserxxx/gotop

[5]: https://github.com/zyedidia/micro

> The worst way to store and manipulate text is to use an array.

Claim made from theoretical considerations, without any actual reference to real-world editors. The popular Micro[1] text editor uses a simple line array[2], and performs fantastically well on real-world editing tasks.

Meanwhile, ropes are so complicated that even high-quality implementations have extremely subtle bugs[3] that can lead to state or content corruption.

Which data structure is "best" is not just a function of its asymptotic performance. Practical considerations are equally important (arguably more so).

[1] https://github.com/zyedidia/micro

[2] https://github.com/zyedidia/micro/blob/master/internal/buffe...

[3] https://github.com/cessen/ropey/pull/67

There are two main ways to configure sudo.The first one is using the sudoers file.It is located at /etc/sudoers for Linux,and /usr/local/etc/sudoers for FreeBSD respectively.The paths are different,but the configuration works in the same way. A typical sudoers file looks like this. The sudoers file must be edited with the visudo command,which ensures the config is free of errors.Running this command as the root user will result in opening vi by default.If you want to use a different editor you can set the VISUAL environment varaible to the editor you want. For example,if you want to use micro as the text editor run:

found that micro has dedicated info page for copy paste

micro: winget install zyedidia.micro