Why do you want to avoid LVM so much? You are stuck with having just 1
filesystem because hardlinks dont traverse filesystems so you are stuck with
1 large drive, a raid device or LVM. I have been experimenting with
redhat's GFS via centos5 and it looks promising but I have not tried it with
backuppc.
I was thinking that it would be a very nice setup to use GFS for multiple
backuppc servers and find a way to share the pool/cpool directories.
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> >
> > 1) I have to backup multiple servers and their composed storage exceeds
> > the capacity of my current backup media (500Gb SATA disk); I will add a
> > second one and that would be enough (for the time being). Problem is I
> > would like to avoid using Virtual Volumes (LVM), if at all possible, so
> > I thought I could backup some servers on one disk and others on the
> > other, but I don't know how (end if it is possible at all), since I see
> > only one TopDir setting and nothing comparable in the per-host configs.
> > How should I proceed?
>
>
> If you have another machine that isn't busy at night, the simple
> solution is to just run a completely separate instance of backuppc and
> split the clients up. One of the nice things about free software is that
> it doesn't cost any more to run more copies.
>
> You can use RAID0 to combine disks but keep in mind that it (or LVM)
> makes it twice as likely that you will lose data since a single disk
> failure will lose data from both. A safer alternative would be to use a
> pair of 750gig or 1TB drives which aren't horribly expensive these days
> in a RAID1 configuration. With software raid you can recover from 1
> disk even if you move it to a different machine/controller.
>
> > 2) I am a bit confused about the schedule configuration. What I would
> > like to achieve is just a single backup cycle: Full backup once a week
> > and daily Incremental ones; as soon as I have a complete new Full I want
> > to discard all old ones (Full & Incremental). What is the right setting
> > to achieve this?
>
> That can work, but unless your target machines are unusual, I would
> recommend keeping at least 2 fulls. My most common reason to recover
> something is that a user deleted or modified some files and didn't
> realize until a few days later that they needed the old ones back. With
> the scheme you propose there will be a day where you only have the
> previous night's run.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
