If your running on ZFS another alternative is snapshots with send and recv
which should be even more efficient than rsync as it doesn't need to calculate
the changes it just "knows".
Regards
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Kubica
To: Simon Hobson ; rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [rrd-users] Incremental backup rrd file
I'll second all of this about rsync: it's very efficient and 'safe' for rrd
data copies.
I don't have backups per-se, I run active mirrored rrd servers with millions
of rrd datafiles per server and if one crashes where I need to rebuild one or
install a new one for hardware upgrade like I'm doing today, then I use rsync
to get a copy from another mirror ... actively. The replacement-mirror writes
behind in the rrd update queue so it's updating older intervals than the rest
of the cluster and then I copy from another mirror. I'm currently copying 1TB
(one terabyte) and it works beautifully.
rsync would take a long time to do backups nightly of that many files (which
is why it's not done); but on a few thousand'ish it can(should!) be used.
If you use rsync over ssh, at least do something like this: rsync -ave 'ssh
-c blowfish' src dst
I've yet to bother with rsync daemon with no ssh, though that'd be more
efficient as well.
-Ryan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Simon Hobson <li...@thehobsons.co.uk>
To: rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: [rrd-users] Incremental backup rrd file
Darren Murphy wrote:
>Just to add a little to this, the --stats & --human-readable options
>provide useful insight as to the efficiency of rsync
<snip>
>So 3121 files totaling 4.3GB in size, and at least 90% of those files
>would change between successive sync runs, yet only a very small
>amount of data needs to be transferred.
That tallies with my experience. Obviously it varies considerably
with the type of data, but I've yet to find something where it
doesn't show a reduction in data transferred.
In general, RRD files should 'compress' quite well (unless you use
very small consolidations).
>I'd also add that in my experience rsync is incredibly robust and reliable.
>I've been running an hourly rsync from my main MRTG server to 3
>separate "slaves" for almost 2 years now, and never once had a problem
>with data integrity.
I'll second that. And of course, even if the process dies part way
through, you can just run it again and it will catch up.
--
Simon Hobson
Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
_______________________________________________
rrd-users mailing list
rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch
https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rrd-users mailing list
rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch
https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users
================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the
person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the
recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise
disseminating it or any information contained in it.
In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please
telephone +44 845 868 1337
or return the E.mail to postmas...@multiplay.co.uk._______________________________________________
rrd-users mailing list
rrd-users@lists.oetiker.ch
https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users
