Kenneth Lerman schrieb: > I believe that in the past, someone reported a similar problem. The cause > wound up being that he was doing a --init every backup. > > That isn't your problem, is it? > Well, no. The command I'm launching is "/usr/sbin/dirvish --vault myvault". > Could you post the "summary" file from one of these backups? > This is one of my summary files: > client: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > tree: /home/xxx > rsh: ssh > Server: myserver > Bank: /var/backups/dirvish/mybank > vault: myvault > branch: default > Image: 2008-03-21_18.18 > Reference: 2008-03-20_11.18 > Image-now: 2008-03-21 18:18:16 > Expire: +14 days == 2008-04-04 18:18:16 > exclude: > *.iso > *~ > *.tmp > *.bak > cache > Cache > /tmp > .gnupg > *.vmdk > SET permissions devices numeric-ids stats xdev > UNSET checksum init sparse whole-file zxfer > > > ACTION: rsync -vrltH --delete -pgo --stats -D --numeric-ids -x > --exclude-from=/var/backups/dirvish/mybank/myvault/2008-03-21_18.18/exclude-from=/var/backups/dirvish/mybank/myvault/2008-03-21_18.18/exclude > --link-dest=/var/backups/dirvish/mybank/myvault/2008-03-20_11.18/tree > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/xxx/ > /var/backups/dirvish/mybank/myvault/2008-03-21_18.18/tree > > Backup-begin: 2008-03-21 18:18:16 > Backup-complete: 2008-03-21 19:09:54 > Status: success > Thanks for your help!
Jens > Ken > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jens Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:23 PM > Subject: Re: [Dirvish] [Bulk] Re: Full backup every time > > > Keith Lofstrom schrieb: > >>>> what could be the reason that dirvish make a full backup every time I >>>> start the backup? I am running the lates Ubuntu on both, client and >>>> server. >>>> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 05:24:46PM -0400, Kenneth Lerman wrote: >> >> >>> It is supposed to. >>> >>> >> Ken's reply is true, but you might want a little more information >> than that. Dirvish uses rsync to create full and complete images. >> On the server disk, there should be a succession of complete images. >> Rsync uses unix/linux hard links to share data file information; if >> a file does not change, there may be many links to it, but it is only >> stored on the backup disk once. Thus, a 500GB disk can store what >> appears to be hundreds of 200GB images - only the changed files and >> the directory information is added for each successive image. For >> example, I have a 500GB backup disk with about 150 images on it, >> each apparently 200GB, and I have used only 350GB of it. By using >> the "branch" feature of dirvish, files that are identical on many >> different machines can also share data space. >> >> > Yes, I know that it is supposed to do a full backup every time. Maybe my > wording was not exact. On my system it transfers the whole directory > every time (e. g. a large photo collection). These files never change. > And, of course, they use disk space on the backup disk. > >> This is true in the ideal case. In reality, big files with little >> changes ( rotating-name logs, mbox mail folders, vmware images) >> will chew up disk pretty fast. Use "dateext" for logrotate, >> Maildir format for mail repositories, and samba links to linux >> filespace from smaller vmware images to minimize the big file >> changes getting backed up. Use dirvish-expire to manage storage. >> And look on the mailing list archives, the wiki, and the many >> FAQs and writeups created by other dirvish users for more hints. >> >> If after doing all these things, dirvish is creating huge images >> and not using hardlinks, filling up your backup disk too fast, there >> may be other problems. The helpful people on this list can help >> after you have made an effort characterize your problem. >> > The thing is that I have no idea how to find the cause. With another > computer it runs absolutely fine. I even don't know whether to search on > the client or on the server side. > > The file system (for the backup) is ext3. I checked the size of the > directory with du–all backups have nearly 40 gb (except those who have > been interrupted). The remaining disk size (checked with df) decreases > by the same amount. I did not check the inode numbers, but I think the > decreasing disk size is proof enough. > > On my client I am running a normal rsync server (version 2.6.9). The > server has enough rights to access the files. > > I suppose that it for some reason thinks the file has changed although > it hasn't. But why? The file size and the date doesn't change. > > Jens > _______________________________________________ > Dirvish mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish > _______________________________________________ > Dirvish mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish > > _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
