Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'Disk Utility?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Disk Utility?
Authored by: ikioi on Jun 03, '08 07:55:28AM
Why not just use a encrypted sparse disk image on the server to store the backups? Data is encrypted all the way and no need for modifications on the server...

Your approach (which is similar to how Time Machine handles network backups of non-filevaulted files) is cleaner and much easier to administrate but his way would be a lot faster over the network. Rsync always launches two processes, client and server, even if it's just running on one machine. His method uses the network to carry the communication between the client rsync process and the server rsync process. This communication is optimized to use as little bandwidth as possible (that was the original point of rsync). Your way uses the network to carry the communication between the "server" rsync process and the remote diskimage. This communication is not optimized (because it usually happens over local ATA or SCSI, not the network) and it would be fairly intensive. So your way would use a lot more bandwidth than his way. Still, your way is much easier to administrate ongoing, because his way requires keeping up with patches to encfs and rsync, and your way just relies on software that Apple maintains.

So there are pros and cons to each method. It depends on how fast your network is and how much time you have to worry about doing system administration.

[ Reply to This | # ]