Neil Bothwick wrote:
> I'm currently using it with a local server. If I decide to use the
> backups on a remote server too, I'll probably stick to backing up to the
> local server and then using rsync. It makes sense to have a copy of the
> backup locally and only use the much slower option of restoring from a
> remote host when absolutely necessary.

There are at least two drawbacks to using rsync for mirroring the local
backup to a remote host:

- If your local backup becomes corrupt, then so does your remote
backup, except if you are quick enough to disable the rsync step.

- If you have disconnection during the rsync step (happened to me last
night), your remote backup is temporarily corrupted.

For the second problem, I'm toying with the idea of writing an
rsync-like tool for mirroring one big file to a remote server, by first
transmitting the changes and storing them separately on the remote
machine, then performing the update on the big file after the connection
has closed.

-- Remy