On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 17:11 -0500, Timothy J. Massey wrote: > I don't use compression. The fewer layers in my backup strategy the > better: and disk space is cheap! :)
Yes, but the disk is the most likely place to get an error and a smaller compressed file thus has less risk... Fast CPU's and RAM are cheap too, but I use my desktop machine to get double duty since the backups all run at night. > (The fact that BackupPC mangles > every file name is bad enough...) The CPU usage on the backup server > is pure rsync overhead. The question is, is the overhead of the transfer more than offset by the number of times you don't have to repeat the transfer? Looking at MB/sec isn't really a good measure of what an incremental rsync run is doing. > Might it help if the rsync protocol on the backup server were not > written in perl? Or do I misunderstand, and it's in a compiled library? Yes, both CPU and RAM-wise, although I'm not sure how much the checksum-caching scheme helps. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
