clint woodrow wrote: > > > Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote: >> Adam Goryachev wrote at about 13:42:41 +1000 on Wednesday, June 3, 2009: >> >> > clint woodrow wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Matthias Meyer wrote: >> > > >> > > > rsync(d) transmit only changed parts of a file >> > > > (http://www.samba.org/rsync). e.g. a 2.6 GB mailbox.pst and receive >> > > > one new mail at sunday. rsync will only transmit this one new mail. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > And you need a client on windows side. You can use cwRsync or rsync >> > > > within a cygwin environment. >> > > > >> > > > br Matthias >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the details Matthias. I was wondering if one of you could >> > > confirm something else for me. We've been testing BackupPC for the >> > > last few months. The local backup server is up and running great and >> > > we're getting ready to put up an offsite backup server for redundancy >> > > and offsite security. >> > > >> > > Up to this point, I've assumed I wouldn't be able to roll PSTs into >> > > the backups because they'd be too large to send over the limited >> > > bandwidth every night and that they'd take too much space in the >> > > pool. From what Matthias has said, it looks like as long as we have >> > > the initial backup, subsequent backups shouldn't take nearly as long >> > > since rsync is sending changes only. Can I also take from this that >> > > BackupPC won't be storing full copies for every backup? i.e. If the >> > > user has a 1 GB pst and adds one message of 2k, the pool requirements >> > > are only 1 GB + 2k, not 2 GB + 2k? >> > > >> > >> > No, rsync handles the transfer, so you will only transfer >> > (approximately) 2k for the changes. (Obviously there are additional >> > overheads for the non-changed sections, but they are very small). >> > However, once backuppc has the whole new version of the file, it will >> > add this 1.002G file to the pool, so the pool will consume 2G + 2k. Of >> > course, if you use compression, then the size of the cpool will be >> > smaller depending on how compressible your pst files are. >> > >> > >> >> Said another way, BackupPC only does pooling and de-duplication at the >> file level. To get the "1GB + 2k" you would need to pool at the block >> level. Such block-level de-duplication would be nice for files that >> grow such as log files or Inboxes, but it is not possible now with >> BackupPC. > > > Thanks for the clarification everyone. Of course, what I'd really prefer > is getting rid of PSTs entirely. When we move up to the next version of > Exchange, the database size limit will be sufficiently increased (75GB to > 16TB) so that everyone can move their archives back to the mail server. > Once that's accomplished, we can just do differentials on the Exchange > database and the pool impact will be much smaller. We're doing that with > the existing Exchange backup and the differentials are commonly ~3% of the > full backup. > > BackupPC really is such a great tool, but I suppose it can't do > everything. I suppose we could have proposed the $30,000 block-level > backup solution we were shown, but somehow I doubt it would have made it > through our budget as easily as the free software! >
I would believe that ZFS will support this. If you run Backuppc in [Open]Solaris with ZFS as filesystem it should work. br Matthias -- Don't Panic ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/