Re: [Duplicity-talk] Mirroring vs. Sets

[email builder]

>>>  that's standard backup methodology. backups should protect from 

>>> accidential
>>>  deletion or hidden data corruption as well, which you might notice as 
>>> late as
>>>  after several backups.
>> 
>>  OK that makes sense, but I'm planning to mirror multiple user email
>>  data from a server to probably more than one location.  I think in that
>>  case, mirroring is the standard methodology.  It seems like historical
>>  backups are used more for personal data.
>> 
>>  Does that make sense or.... not?
> 
> on a second thought. how do you expect an encrypted backup to add an 
> increment 
> if not as a set to a chain? for this you would have to encrypt the chunks 
> rsync 
> computes and i know of no software that does that. the only alternative would 
> be 
> to do fulls all the time.

You assume I know the implementation details, which is not the case.
I think I follow what you're saying.  I had just wanted to find a way to
establish a rsync-like mirror that was encrypted on the remote storage
host.  I guess that's not possible without doing full backups every time?

>>  Well, obviously I'm naive here, but I came to find duplicity because of 
>> the
>>  encryption.  rsync + gpg.  If rdiffdir doesn't encrypt, why not just 
>> use rsync?
>>  Anyhow... since it sounds like the only way to use encryption is to stay
>>  with duplicity, I ask again if there's a way to effectively implement 
>> mirroring
>>  without historical information?  (without also having to do full backups 
>> every
>>  time)
> 
> no. you should look for other options, duplicity is not the only encrypting 
> backup software.

Does anyone have any advice of other software that allows
encrypted mirroring (possibly without doing full backups
every time)?

Thank you for your responses.  I appreciate them AND the software.