I have tested a lot of atomic and traditional distributions lately. Tons of desktop environments strictly for fun and branching out. Having a 1 2 3 backup strategy and not just having it in place, but being able to restore your backup in a timely manner to keep continuity is paramount. You can list infinite reasons why.
Why do atomic distros which are supposed to me more stable, superior to some degree immutable environments lack good backup options? You can hack things together and there are somewhat installable tools. Like timeshift or etc etc. But it seems they place a lot more emphasis on rolling back poor updates in the event than total system backups.
By default it you should have true backups then layer in rollbacks. Not the other way around. Am I missing something?
Timeshift is completely unnecessary. Fedora Atomic’s rollbacking is more powerful and avoids certain issues.
You should only be backing up personal files, not OS files. The OS is replaceable, your personal files are not.
I’ve been backing up my OS and my personal files with borg to my NAS.
Saved me a weekend of setup and config editing once before, when my drive failed.
Or do you just remember all the config changes you did and type them out from the top of your head? And all the apps you have installed? It’s over 300 apps and 100 config files for me.
The OS is tiny compared to personal files. It doesn’t make sense not to back it up.
Okay, so let me break down what I THINK is happening here, which is that you might have a misunderstanding of what what atomic/immutable means.
First, these are made to separate OSspace from UserSpace. Whatever you keep in UserSpace is your responsibility.
Second, the actual running OS is built on layers like containers. The hash of what your OSspace is can be readily gotten to compile the exact same version of it from the repos that hold the presompiled versions of these things. Just like containers.
Third, you don’t need to backup any of the OS because of the above.
Lastly, the general idea is that since you don’t need to backup anything about the OS, and you should be able to checkout a hash of some sort that can download and be eventually bit-consistant with the OS layer, all you have to worry about is the UserSpace content.
How you manage the UserSpace content is up to you. Back your stuff up, start a bare machine and check the OS out to a specific revision where your previous machine was at, then drop your UserSpace stuff in, and it will “just work”.
You do not need to back up your OS, only your personal files.
Fam, I loathe saying this, but -please- if you desire engagement, then at least put some honest effort into proofreading your writings before posting them. I’m just assuming stuff at this point because I can barely grasp your intent/writing. *sigh*
Why do atomic distros which are supposed to me more stable, superior to some degree immutable environments lack good backup options? You can hack things together and there are somewhat installable tools. Like timeshift or etc etc.
Which distros even come by default -so installed OOTB- with “good backup options”? Which atomic distros is this statement even based on?
But it seems they place a lot more emphasis on rolling back poor updates in the event than total system backups.
Because their atomicity barely goes beyond updates. The ‘atomic’ in “atomic distros” mostly describes how its updates are atomic; i.e. the system either updates successfully or doesn’t update at all. Thus, by design, we have two possible states after an update: a ‘successfully’ updated system or a ‘failed’ update resulting in the same state as the previous. Atomic distros aren’t smart enough to catch all ‘breakage’ occurred by ‘successful’ updates. As such, most of these breakages will only show them after trying to boot into updated system. Deleting/erasing the previous known good state without verifying that the new/upcoming state works well is foolish. Especially on a distro that’s got robust updates otherwise. Hence, the functionality of rollbacks on updates is almost trivially done/applied to atomic distros, as it (almost) follows by design.
So, what I’m interested in is the following:
- Are you familiar with the notion of stateless systems? Is this (perhaps) what you’re (actually) seeking?
By default it you should have true backups then layer in rollbacks. Not the other way around. Am I missing something?
I think my previous paragraph should be enlightening in this regard. If you disagree (or something/otherwise), then please feel free to elaborate why you think so. Btw, what do you even mean with "true backups?
Based on their post history, I strongly suspect the OP has English as a non-primary language. They are doing fine, their posts are perfectly understandable. There’s no value in harassing them about that.
