Re: [BackupPC-users] Does BackupPC need a bug tracker?
I agree with what Adam said. On 24/05/16 01:30, Adam Goryachev wrote: > I think there are a lot of things that could be better, but up until > now, we only had the mailing list, and that wasn't managed well at all. > I would suggest we focus as much as possible on using the tools that are > available, because adding workload to manage additional tools won't help > the development of BackupPC. If we find that we have people actually > working on BackupPC, and that the number of issues is not being managed > well, or making life difficult, or whatever other aspect of managing the > project, then we should have a discussion then about it. > > ie, certainly solving problems before they become a problem is a great > idea, but at this point I feel (for what my opinion is worth) that we > should focus on getting backuppc 3.x into a well maintained status, and > working towards a beta release of 4.0. > > PS, also, just because the devel list is low volume doesn't mean that > everything should go to the users list. > > Regards, > Adam > -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection
On 19/05/16 08:41, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote: > The CLAs for GNU projects have the FSF as the rights owner. > Linux has The Linux Foundation. I guess this is wrong. Ref. Stefan's mail. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection
On 19/05/16 08:37, Stefan Peter wrote: > This is simply wrong: The Linux Kernel does _not_ require a CLA. But it > requires a Certificate of Origin, also known as Signed-off-by. See > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=HEAD > for details. > > Additionally, there are countries where you can not legally transfer > your copyright to someone else unless you have been hired to do the work > in question. This would mean that Backuppc would either have to hire the > contributors or reject their contributions in order to make sure the CLA > is effective. I agree, thanks Stefan! I think this is what we should require. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection
On 18/05/16 19:06, Rob Owens wrote: >>> requirement to transfer ownership of contributions to the official >>> version so that someone would have the authority to change the license >>> on future versions if desired - but it may already be too late for >>> that. >From the CVS log, the only three authors (committers) are: cbarratt, tobiasly, gfk. However, I *believe* a few of the patches that are committed by one of these three, but come from somebody posting a patch to the mailing list. We really have a hard time figuring that out. It may be too late, unless we want to scour the mailing list way back and find all the patches and authors. It's doable, but time consuming. And then we need to contact these persons by the email they posted and hope to get a reply. If the email still exists – if not, we have to figure out the new email address and try again. > As Les said, a CLA would give the project owner the ability to change the > license > in the future. That includes the ability to change it to a proprietary > license. I think some people wouldn't want to sign anything that includes the ability to change it to a proprietary license. > The GPL version of the code would still be available as GPL, but that same > code > could be sold in a proprietary product at the will of the project owner. Most free and open source software isn't sold as a product, but made money from by providing services around it. I'm not sure who'd buy free software. Also, we don't really have a legal entity here, do we? I hardly think a Sourceforge project by itself is considered by any courtroom as a legal entity. The CLAs for GNU projects have the FSF as the rights owner. Linux has The Linux Foundation. We must not make people sign it over to any one person. > For this reason, a lot of people frown on CLA requirements. Look up "Ubuntu > CLA" > if you want to see what kind of trouble CLAs can cause. True. We wouldn't want to make anyone refrain from contributing because of a CLA, I think. What we should make sure of, is that all contributors, agree for their patch to have the GPL-2 software license, or later versions of the same license, as published by the Free Software Foundation. Maybe that's given as they make a PR to a GPL-2 project, so it's not really needed? -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
Hi, On 18/05/16 18:50, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Richard Alloway wrote: >> I do have some lab resources available to me for standing up and tearing >> down VMs of various OS flavors. >> The resources are not limitless, but more than I have on my personal >> machines. >> >> We've been using puppet and ansible for some of our internal test >> automation. One or both may be candidates for automated testing of >> BackupPC. > > You might want to look at jenkins to manage the automation. It is > java and might be overkill, but it is pretty great at cross-platform > operations. It can be triggered by changes in your source control > system and can collate results from different runs in one place for > you. There are plugins for all sorts of build/test/publish scenarios > if you need them. > I would actually recommend doing this with Travis CI. https://travis-ci.org/ It's 100% free for open source projects, and it has fantastic integration with Github. It's used by Facebook, Mozilla, Heroku, Twitter etc. It's very much used by open source projects on Github. We'll get a new VM for every build and we can test for all kinds of OSes. A push to Github will automatically trigger a new build, where we build and install the code and run the tests. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC futures
Thanks Stephen, :-)
comments inline.
On 17/05/16 17:42, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> Il 17/05/2016 16:24, Stephen Joyce ha scritto:
>
>> In the shorter term, my goal is to spend some spare time collecting patches
>> for the bugs that have been found in the past ~3 years (which may take some
>> time since they're scattered around), incorporate them into the existing
>> CVS tree, and issue a point release addressing those issues.
> As it seems we are moving to github I would like to ask You which are plans
> about
> current infrastructure (SourceForge).
> We do *not* want to fork the project or, worse, try to hijack it away from
> the old
> developers (Craig in primis, but not only).
> You are implying You will continue working on the old SF project.
> Is that temporary, something like a "last cleanup", or do You plan to revive
> the
> Project as-is?
As Mauro wrote, should we move to Github or not? :-)
Personally I'm very much a proponent of the move, since Github
encourages collaboration in a much easier way. The threshold for making
a patch and sending a pull request on Github is very low. While on
Sourceforge it's harder to collaborate, in my opinion. Also, with only
two committers, who are busy, it has been hard to get the patches merged
in a timely manner – I mean no offense to you or Craig here.
I have synced the CVS repo to Git in a one-shot way, and continuing
syncing with CVS is difficult and time consuming.
For that reason, it would be very good, IMHO, if we could have your
opinion on the switch, and if you condone the swtich then you could
instead spend your time incorprating the patches into Git.
If you have a Github account I will add your Github user to the
organization as Owner immediately. Also, if Craig could create an
account – the same.
> If the project will continue on SF and You can incorporate also other people
> work
> I think we should reconsider decision to move to GitHub at all.
> OTOH if You (and Craig, of course!) could consider leading us also on the new
> platform
> I think that could be beneficial.
I believe the best way is to disable the CVS repo and point the source
code page to the Github account.
> I am strongly against having two projects for any extended period of time.
However, I think this should be a clean switch, i.e. to stop commiting
new things to CVS and instead commit to Git.
>> In the longer term, Craig has stated he still has the desire to work on
>> BackupPC; the problem currently is time. I'm still hopeful that he will be
>> able to find some time to help review any major updates, releases, etc.
>> This is after all, still his baby.
> That is wonderful news.
I agree. That is great news. I hope he is willing to use Git and Github.
I believe his baby has grown and is now ready school. ;-)
> In particular, at present, this means:
> - should we move to github or not?
I vote yes, if I have a say in it.
> - should effort be concentrated on v3.x or on v4.x?
I think it should be v4.x.
However, let's merge in bug fixes for v3.x since a lot of users still
use v3.x and will not move until v4.x comes out of beta, and not even
until a few dot-releases of v4.x.
In fact, lets create a v3.x maintenance branch to merge in the bug fixes
and make releases, and then merge the v4.x branch into master.
> - has the effort to ease installation/configuration his blessing?
> - can he comment (and set priorities) to workpackages ("issues", in case we
> move to GH)
> - whatever he would like to indicate as a priority
>
> Thanks a lot Stephen and
> Regards to Craig
Seconded! Thanks a lot Stephen and Craig!
--
Best regards,
Lars Tobias
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] IRC channel
On 17/05/16 13:37, Mauro Condarelli wrote: > @Lars: are You available? Yes, no problem. >> - it is likely that you are on-line / where there is a high probability >> to meet each other? I use a ZNB bouncer, so I always look online, but I'm only online when I connect to my bouncer. But I will get all messages and notifications I received while "disconnected" when I "connect" with my IRC client. > I am usually connected to that channel (and a few others) whenever I'm at my > workplace > (which means: "very often") as I use Thunderbird as client and thus I have > IRC bundled with > my mail. My nick is "mcon". > I suspect Lars already joined channel as I see a "larstobi" among lurkers. Yep, I'm that lurker. ;-) -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup
On 16/05/16 23:34, Mauro Condarelli wrote: >> It is not possible to *enforce* it on GitHub, but it is possible to have >> it as a policy that one committer should comment LGTM before another >> committer can merge the PR. > Nice. > I am not familiar with github policy setup. > How is that done? It's not possible to setup something with Github, it's only a way to do things. That means we should "kindly ask" all committers to wayt for at least one LGTM review before merging the PR. Just as you suggested. :-) > I see no way to insert this in workflow. Correct – not possible. > This way committers could rely on LGTM tags even if they are not able / have > not the time > to dig into details of specific patches. Yes, we could create a LGTM tag instead of just commenting. > Uhm..."reviewers" and "committers" could also be separate teams (possibly > overlapping) I guess we can, and all committers should be in the reviewers team. However at this point we need to get to more than 3 committers, which I think is more important. So I don't think a reviewers team is strictly necessary yet. Also, I think it's not as cool to be on the reviewers team, so maybe we'll never have any applicants. >> We use this policy at my office and it works quite well. > > Can You elaborate, please? > This sounds very interesting. It's just an easy to use way to get two persons to review a PR. It's not anything more elaborate than what I have written, really, it's very simple. Which is, maybe, why it works so well. :) -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
On 16/05/16 20:39, Norm Legare wrote: > Where/when/who/how does the regression testing get done for this project? We have no CI set up yet. Maybe Travis could work. I'm not sure we even have a test suite. We should work on that, definitely. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] github setup
On 16/05/16 17:57, Mauro Condarelli wrote: >> So, I feel that we would like to enforce some peer review. Perhaps the >> solution is to require 2 maintainers to approve a patch, but I fear that >> increases the workload/makes the process more fragile. > > If You want peer-review we could move to the "patchwork" infrastructure, and > retain > the ML as primary mean, but even there I'm not aware of any way to enforce > multiple > approval, it just makes it possible and traceable. It is not possible to *enforce* it on GitHub, but it is possible to have it as a policy that one committer should comment LGTM before another committer can merge the PR. (Looks Good To Me) (Pull Request) We use this policy at my office and it works quite well. I have noticed that Docker uses that policy as well. Examples: https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22757 https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22698 https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/22574 Also, note the "Signed-off-by". -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
Norm Legare wrote: > Can I assume that github is very similar to Clearcase? Git is not equal to Github, as Github is a web site that is hosting projects using Git, while Git is the actual version control system. I guess one of the biggest differences with clearcase is that git is a distributed version control system, while clearcase is a client-server model (centralized). Plus, it's open source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control#Distributed_vs._centralized Also, Github encourages Pull Requests workflow, which I don't believe clearcase supports. Although I have never used clearcase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control#Pull_requests -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
On 16/05/16 15:33, Adam Goryachev wrote: > Ideally, anyone can submit a patch > Ideally, any "approved" person can commit a patch, as long as it isn't > their own > > Could that be done? Yes, this is done using Pull Requests. The process is described in this article: https://help.github.com/articles/using-pull-requests/ > PS, I think I forgot to include my github account name "adamgoryachev", > I can't promise to be terribly helpful, but I do try from time to time. I've invited you to the organization. :-) -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
On 16/05/16 14:56, Juergen Harms wrote: > Username: I dont remember (-, sorry - found the confirmation mail when I > first joined the list in 2008, but that has no reference to a user name > I used at that time. > > My email address is juergen.ha...@unige.ch - in the past I normally used > Juergen_Harms are a lower-case clone, today more and more the email > address itself. Can you arrange that, Lars, or should I simply > un-subscribe and subscribe again? can you force my email address to be > my username? I tried posting your email address into the "Forgot Password" page on GitHub, but they don't have it registered. You're going to have to register a new user. :-) -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4
On 16/05/16 13:23, Mauro Condarelli wrote: > My current plans are: > > 1) bring github up to date. I have now finished bringing it up to date and have published it on github: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc-xs https://github.com/backuppc/rsync-bpc > 4) there are several alpha tarballs for v4.0.0, keeping them as a bit of > history in the > branch would be nice. I have created a branch "v4.0.0" and imported each tarball release as a commit. https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/tree/v4.0.0 > 5) request everyone to open "issues" on backuppc/backuppc for: > a) patches already sent against current code-base. >this is necessary to consolidate them and avoid losing a lot of good > work. > b) bug (or "rough edges") reports against current code-base. >this is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of involved initial effort. > c) wishes. >as we want to move ahead we could as well understand where we want to > go. Issues is open for business, go ahead and report. Mauro has been invited to the organization already. Please post your username if you would like to join in. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC
On 16/05/16 11:13, Mauro Condarelli wrote: > Il 16/05/2016 10:04, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting ha scritto: >> The CVS repo is a mess, so I abandoned a sync. Also, I haven't been able >> to find any signs of where the repo for v4 is. I can only guess that >> Craig keeps it private and publishes zip files with releases. > We are trying to contact Craig (who seems *very* busy with his new position), but > he might not be available at all. > In that case we will do a baseline commit from tarballs and start from there. > > If You can, it would be nice if You could bring the repo up-to-date with current CVS. > After that we can decide if to open a new project for v4 (rationale being it really > changes a lot and even backend repository structure is not compatible anymore; > nice nickname might be BackupNG) or simply do a branch and populate it with > tarball contents. I have started to bring the repo up-to-date with current CVS already. Will publish when it's finished later today. >> I have just read the discussion on the dev mailing list. I couldn't find >> your name in the discussion, though. > That's strange; currently topmost message at https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/ > (not dev!) is mine (Re: [BackupPC-users] Status on new BackupPC v4 Sorry, I only looked in the dev list. Found it here in users. >> However, I will be happy to give you and more people admin rights. > I am "mcondarelli" on github (https://github.com/mcondarelli) and I would like to join https://github.com/backuppc > organization. I'll add you to the org. Whare are David's and Juergen's usernames? Best regards, Lars Tobias signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Per-PC pools
Hi, On 3/13/13 12:52 PM, Stephen Joyce wrote: > I'm in a situation where I find myself desiring per-pc pools.[1] > [...] > The storage to backup this data is also usually funded > by individual faculty accounts (sometimes grants) and as such should be > dedicated to that faculty's PC(s). I would suggest that you pool the money, and keep tabs on how much each faculty's PC is using based on the "Full Size" sum for each PC, and then split the bill accordingly. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Pool synchronization?
On 3/4/13 5:38 PM, Tyler J. Wagner wrote: > Just disable BackupPC's pooling entirely. You'd have to disable > BackupPC_nightlyAdmin, and the link process after completing the dump > stage. On 3/6/13 11:10 AM, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote: > Also, like Tyler said, you should disable BackupPC's pooling to > increase your performance. On 3/6/13 6:43 PM, Mark Campbell wrote: > I see. I just assumed that it was possible based on Lars' comments. I didn't know how to do it myself and I just referred to Tyler's advice in the text above. It sounds like it almost certainly involves some Perl coding or in the very least commenting out some code. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Pool synchronization?
On 3/6/13 11:10 AM, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote: > Also, like Tyler said, you should disable BackupPC's pooling to increase > your performance. And you must also disable compression in BackupPC, and enable it in ZFS instead. Compressing the files will destroy your dedup potential. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Pool synchronization?
On 3/4/13 5:20 PM, Mark Campbell wrote: > Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, what are your thoughts on using ZFS' dedup > feature on a BackupPC pool? I'm aware that a goodly amount of RAM would be > required for that feature. But since BackupPC's dedup feature is file-based, > and ZFS' dedup feature is block-based, even more space could be saved; > particularly when you're backing up things like .pst files, where a large > majority of the file is the same, save a few bytes/KB/MB. Such files are > flagged by BackupPC as different. As long as you can keep the DDT in RAM, it would not slow down too much. You should test that, though. For about 1 TB of used disk space, I believe you would need something like 3 GB of RAM, depending on your filesystem's average block size. You can calculate the required RAM amount with "zdb -S trunk" which will simulate dedup on your disk, and then you can multiply the total blocks number by 320 to get the required RAM. If the dedup tables (DDTs) spill over your amount of available RAM, it will use the L2ARC if you have one or the disk if you don't have L2ARC cache. Harddisk access for the DDTs would slow you down significantly. If you can keep a pretty decent sized L2ARC on a very fast SSD it would be less slow if your RAM is too small. Also, like Tyler said, you should disable BackupPC's pooling to increase your performance. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Pool synchronization?
On 3/3/13 8:02 AM, Trey Dockendorf wrote: > However the checksumming in ZFS only takes place on RAIDZ sets. ZFS actually always checksums and error detection, also on RAID1 and RAID0. For RAID0 there is no redundant data to attempt correction with. For RAID1 there is a copy of the data to use for correction. > ZFS mirroring (RAID 1) does not do checksum verification. That's wrong, it certainly does, also with error correction. Read up on it here: https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_end_to_end_data -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Pool synchronization?
Hi Mark, On 3/1/13 10:37 PM, Mark Campbell wrote: > Question, taking your model here, and applying it to my situation, > how well would this work: > > BackupPC server, with a RAID1 zpool, with the third member being my > external fireproof drive. Rather than the rotation you described, > just leave it as is as it does its daily routine. Then, should the > day come where I need to grab the drive and go, plugging the drive > into a system with ZFSonLinux & BackupPC installed, could I mount > this drive by itself? Yes, this is no different, really. It would work very well. Just keep it in sync, and all should be fine. You can just pull out any drive at will, without causing any filesystem corruption. The fireproof drive can be inserted in a different computer with ZFS support and you can run "zpool import" and then you can mount the filesystem. You shouldn't use USB for your external drive, though. E-SATA, Firewire or Thunnderbolt is fine. > I really like your idea of zfs send/receive for the remote copy. Do > you have any tips/pointers/docs on the best way to run it in this > scenario? I don't mean to say RTFM, but the top results of a Google search are as good a starting point as any: https://www.google.com/search?q=zfs+send+receive+backup I think this article is quite good: http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=984 If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. :) -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Pool synchronization?
Hi, On 3/1/13 12:34 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Mark Campbell > wrote: > >> So I'm trying to get a BackupPC pool synced on a daily basis from a 1TB MD >> RAID1 array to an external Fireproof drive (with plans to also sync to a >> remote server at our collo). > > I'm not sure anyone has come up with a really good way to do this. > One approach is to use a 3-member raid1 where you periodically remove > a drive and resync a new one. If you have reasonable remote > bandwidth and enough of a backup window, it is much easier to just run > another instance of backuppc hitting the same targets independently. I have come up with a IMHO good way to do this using ZFS (ZFSonLinux). Description: * uses 3 disks. * at all times, keep 1 mirrored disk in a fire safe. * periodically swap the safe disk with mirror in server. 1. create a zpool with three mirrored members. 2. create a filesystem on it and mount at /var/lib/backuppc. 3. do some backups. 4. detach one disk and put in safe. 5. do more backups. 6. detach one disk and swap with the other disk in the safe. 7. attach and online the disk from the safe. 8. watch it sync up. I am currently using 2TB disks, and swap period of 1 month. Because of ZFS it doesn't need to sync all the blocks, but only the changed blocks since 1 month ago. For example, with 10GB changed it will sync in less than 25 minutes (approx. 7 MB/s speed). That's a lot faster than anything I got with mdraid which syncs every block. ZFS also comes with benefits of checksumming and error correction of file content and file metadata. BackupPC also supports error correction through par2, and this gives an extra layer of data protection. Backing up large numbers of files can take a very long time because of harddisk seeking. This can be alleviated by using a SSD cache drive for ZFS. This support for read (ZFS L2ARC) and write (ZFS ZIL) caching on a small SSD (30 GB) cuts incremental time down to half for some shares. As for remote sync, you can use "zfs send" on the backup server and "zfs receive" on the offsite server. This will only send the differences since last sync (like rsync), and will be probably be significantly faster than rsync that in addition has to resolve all the hardlinks. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup aborted: No backup directory /.../new
On 12/19/12 5:48 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Does this run through a stateful firewall or NAT router? No, directly through a gigabit switch. > Instances have been reported where rsync processing had long enough > idle periods for the device to time the connnection out. I see. The nas host has a very large number of files, so that may be the cause of the long delay, but I'm not sure of it. > If that is the case you might enable keep-alives to fix it. Hmm, I haven't noticed that exised for rsyncd (not over SSH). I'll check it out, thanks. -- Regards, Lars Tobias -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup aborted: No backup directory /.../new
On 6/21/12 4:55 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Aaron Cossey wrote: > > I don't think I've seen anything about this problem before, so it may > be unique to your system. I have recently experienced this error on incremental backups. Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS backuppc version 3.2.1-2ubuntu1.1 XferMethod: rsync > Have you looked through the system logs > for disk errors, etc.? In /var/log/backuppc/LOG: 2012-12-19 02:30:17 Backup failed on nas (No backup directory /var/lib/backuppc/pc/nas/new) 2012-12-19 05:10:22 Backup failed on nas (No backup directory /var/lib/backuppc/pc/nas/new) 2012-12-19 07:52:13 Backup failed on nas (No backup directory /var/lib/backuppc/pc/nas/new) Nothing related in syslog. No disk errors. Correlating rsyncd logs from the nas host: 2012/12/19 02:13:37 [31215] building file list 2012/12/19 03:33:44 [31215] rsync error: timeout in data send/receive (code 30) at io.c(137) [sender=3.0.9] 2012/12/19 04:56:34 [31249] connect from (192.168.1.7) 2012/12/19 04:56:34 [31249] rsync on . from backuppc@nas (192.168.1.7) 2012/12/19 04:56:34 [31249] building file list 2012/12/19 06:16:40 [31249] rsync error: timeout in data send/receive (code 30) at io.c(137) [sender=3.0.9] 2012/12/19 07:30:26 [31285] connect from nas (192.168.1.7) 2012/12/19 07:30:26 [31285] rsync on . from backuppc@nas (192.168.1.7) 2012/12/19 07:30:26 [31285] building file list 2012/12/19 08:50:33 [31285] rsync error: timeout in data send/receive (code 30) at io.c(137) [sender=3.0.9] 2012/12/19 15:48:48 [31404] connect from nas (192.168.1.7) So it seems it may be caused by a timeout. -- Regards, Lars Tobias -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Next release
Hi, On 3/27/09 7:44 PM, Paul Mantz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, o...@jltechinc.com > wrote: >> Is it possible to get a CVS copy? >> >> I tried: "cvs -z3.2 >> -d:pserver:anonym...@backuppc.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/backuppc co >> BackupPC" >> >> ...but received the dreaded "__CONFIGURE_BIN_LIST__" error when I ran >> the "./configure.pl" > > I've also started following the CVS repository on github. You can > find that at: > > http://github.com/pcmantz/backuppc-cvs/tree/master Where is the upstream repository these days? It seems the one on SF.net is no longer in use as it has no commits for a long time. I can't find any info on any other repository than the SF.net CVS-repository. Paul: where do you sync your backuppc-cvs repo on github from? -- Regards, Lars Tobias -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ 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/
