Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Simon Köstlin wrote: > Could it be that the problem is with my NFS, because if I mount the NFS it > takes also around 30 seconds until it is mounted. I'm mounting my NFS with > "mount -t nfs 192.168.0.5:/home/backuppc /nas". > > It might (or might not) help to specify options for rsize and wsize in the mount command. I'm not sure what the defaults are these days but you probably want about 32k. See 'man nfs' and 'man mount' for what options are available and how to pass them. I think the sync/async option is set at the server side so you may not be able to control that on a NAS device. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Could it be that the problem is with my NFS, because if I mount the NFS it takes also around 30 seconds until it is mounted. I'm mounting my NFS with "mount -t nfs 192.168.0.5:/home/backuppc /nas". -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Dan Pritts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 21:07 An: Simon Köstlin Cc: 'Les Mikesell'; backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:58:17PM +0100, Simon Köstlin wrote: > I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? on local networks with little or no packet loss, UDP is a better choice than TCP for NFS. TCP will probably actually slow NFS down a little. If you have packet loss, i'd suggest addressing that problem rather than trying to use TCP to mask it. > Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds > until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that > would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on > the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes > that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. I'd suggest that you figure out whether the web interface or your NFS configuration is the problem. Try web with a local directory, and/or use shell commands to poke around in the pc directory. If shell commands of the pc's data directory are not slow your problem is with the CGI, not NFS. danno - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Travis Fraser wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 13:09 -0700, Brien Dieterle wrote: > >> Most NFS servers are pitifully slow compared to a local filesystem, >> particularly when dealing with many small files. It pains me to think >> about how slow that might get-- is anyone else using a non-local >> filesystem? >> > I use a Linux-based NAS device that is mounted via NFS. The backups are > not huge (~25GB), but the performance seems fine. The BackupPC server > does have a dedicated connection with a crossover cable to the NAS. > > The thing most likely to cause speed issues with NFS is the 'sync' option. NFS was designed to survive a server reboot with every operation being completely atomic. This requires every write() to be completely written to disk before being acknowledged as completed, where on your local filesystem it would be permitted to remain in a memory cache for some amount of time before being flushed out to disk. In many cases people prefer to have speed and the same risk of losing data that you would have with local disks if you have a power failure or other machine crash, so they use the async mount option and allow the writes to be buffered. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 13:09 -0700, Brien Dieterle wrote: > Most NFS servers are pitifully slow compared to a local filesystem, > particularly when dealing with many small files. It pains me to think > about how slow that might get-- is anyone else using a non-local > filesystem? I use a Linux-based NAS device that is mounted via NFS. The backups are not huge (~25GB), but the performance seems fine. The BackupPC server does have a dedicated connection with a crossover cable to the NAS. > Simon Köstlin wrote: > > I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? > > Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds > > until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that > > would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on > > the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes > > that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. > > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > > Von: Les Mikesell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 20:35 > > An: Simon Köstlin > > Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached > > Storage > > > > Simon Köstlin wrote: > > > > > > > > I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) > > > and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS > > > and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well. > > > So I can use the Data Directory in this Share. But the NAS supports > > > only a UDP connection with NFS. Are there any other solutions to use a > > > TCP connection? I tried also SMB, but that did not work with BackupPC. > > > I mounted a Share with SMB and that works, but when I wanted to start > > > BackupPC, BackupPC did not start. I only found a log directory on the > > > Share with the LOG file in which was an error like bind() failed. Does > > > anybody know why SMB does not work with BackupPC? Or are there any > > > other solutions like to mount a FTP connection? -- Travis Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
If I'm using BackupPC with a local directory the web interface is fast. But shell commands on the NFS Share are also fast. Only when I use the web interface with the NFS Share it is slow. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Dan Pritts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 21:07 An: Simon Köstlin Cc: 'Les Mikesell'; backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:58:17PM +0100, Simon Köstlin wrote: > I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? on local networks with little or no packet loss, UDP is a better choice than TCP for NFS. TCP will probably actually slow NFS down a little. If you have packet loss, i'd suggest addressing that problem rather than trying to use TCP to mask it. > Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds > until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that > would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on > the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes > that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. I'd suggest that you figure out whether the web interface or your NFS configuration is the problem. Try web with a local directory, and/or use shell commands to poke around in the pc directory. If shell commands of the pc's data directory are not slow your problem is with the CGI, not NFS. danno - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
I don't know if the backup server is configured with mod_perl. I installed BackupPC with a package under Kubuntu. I think it won't be configured with mod_perl then. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jason Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 21:05 An: Simon Köstlin Cc: 'Les Mikesell'; backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage Simon Köstlin wrote: > I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? > Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds > until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that > would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on > the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes > that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. > Actually, UDP is a faster transport protocol than TCP, since TCP is built on top of UDP, more or less. I'm not certain TCP would be safer, except in the event you have a firewall between your backup server and the NAS, and you planned to implement a secure layer for it to talk over. If you are seeing performance problems, perhaps it is slow because you are using the CGI interface through Apache, rather than installing it with mod_perl. Did you configure the backup server to use mod_perl? JH - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Most NFS servers are pitifully slow compared to a local filesystem, particularly when dealing with many small files. It pains me to think about how slow that might get-- is anyone else using a non-local filesystem? brien Simon Köstlin wrote: I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Les Mikesell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 20:35 An: Simon Köstlin Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage Simon Köstlin wrote: I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well. So I can use the Data Directory in this Share. But the NAS supports only a UDP connection with NFS. Are there any other solutions to use a TCP connection? I tried also SMB, but that did not work with BackupPC. I mounted a Share with SMB and that works, but when I wanted to start BackupPC, BackupPC did not start. I only found a log directory on the Share with the LOG file in which was an error like bind() failed. Does anybody know why SMB does not work with BackupPC? Or are there any other solutions like to mount a FTP connection? I hope anybody can help me. Backuppc must be able to create hard links between the files in the pc backup directories and the pool directories. Of the protocols above NFS is the only one that will support hard links. Why is running NFS over UDP a problem for you? - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:58:17PM +0100, Simon Köstlin wrote: > I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? on local networks with little or no packet loss, UDP is a better choice than TCP for NFS. TCP will probably actually slow NFS down a little. If you have packet loss, i'd suggest addressing that problem rather than trying to use TCP to mask it. > Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds > until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that > would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on > the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes > that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. I'd suggest that you figure out whether the web interface or your NFS configuration is the problem. Try web with a local directory, and/or use shell commands to poke around in the pc directory. If shell commands of the pc's data directory are not slow your problem is with the CGI, not NFS. danno - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Simon Köstlin wrote: > I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? > Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds > until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that > would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on > the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes > that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. > Actually, UDP is a faster transport protocol than TCP, since TCP is built on top of UDP, more or less. I'm not certain TCP would be safer, except in the event you have a firewall between your backup server and the NAS, and you planned to implement a secure layer for it to talk over. If you are seeing performance problems, perhaps it is slow because you are using the CGI interface through Apache, rather than installing it with mod_perl. Did you configure the backup server to use mod_perl? JH - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls? Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that would be better with an other connection. But that time is not dependent on the size of the backups. I made backups with just some files and it takes that time to load also if I have Backups with 3GB. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Les Mikesell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 20:35 An: Simon Köstlin Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage Simon Köstlin wrote: > > > > I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) > and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS > and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well. > So I can use the Data Directory in this Share. But the NAS supports > only a UDP connection with NFS. Are there any other solutions to use a > TCP connection? I tried also SMB, but that did not work with BackupPC. > I mounted a Share with SMB and that works, but when I wanted to start > BackupPC, BackupPC did not start. I only found a log directory on the > Share with the LOG file in which was an error like bind() failed. Does > anybody know why SMB does not work with BackupPC? Or are there any > other solutions like to mount a FTP connection? > > I hope anybody can help me. > Backuppc must be able to create hard links between the files in the pc backup directories and the pool directories. Of the protocols above NFS is the only one that will support hard links. Why is running NFS over UDP a problem for you? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Le Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:05 +0100, Simon Köstlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Hi, > > > > I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) > and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS > and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works > well. So I can use the Data Directory in this Share. But the NAS > supports only a UDP connection with NFS. Are there any other > solutions to use a TCP connection? I tried also SMB, but that did not > work with BackupPC. I mounted a Share with SMB and that works, but > when I wanted to start BackupPC, BackupPC did not start. I only found > a log directory on the Share with the LOG file in which was an error > like bind() failed. Does anybody know why SMB does not work with > BackupPC? Or are there any other solutions like to mount a FTP > connection? > I cannot work because SMB and FTP doesn't support hardlinks. I don't know what's the best solution for storing the data on another server. -- Daniel Berteaud FIREWALL-SERVICES SARL. Société de Services en Logiciels Libres Technopôle Montesquieu 33650 MARTILLAC Tel : 05 56 64 15 32 Fax : 05 56 64 82 05 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.firewall-services.com - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Simon Köstlin wrote: > > > > I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) > and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS > and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well. > So I can use the Data Directory in this Share. But the NAS supports > only a UDP connection with NFS. Are there any other solutions to use a > TCP connection? I tried also SMB, but that did not work with BackupPC. > I mounted a Share with SMB and that works, but when I wanted to start > BackupPC, BackupPC did not start. I only found a log directory on the > Share with the LOG file in which was an error like bind() failed. Does > anybody know why SMB does not work with BackupPC? Or are there any > other solutions like to mount a FTP connection? > > I hope anybody can help me. > Backuppc must be able to create hard links between the files in the pc backup directories and the pool directories. Of the protocols above NFS is the only one that will support hard links. Why is running NFS over UDP a problem for you? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage
Hi, I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well. So I can use the Data Directory in this Share. But the NAS supports only a UDP connection with NFS. Are there any other solutions to use a TCP connection? I tried also SMB, but that did not work with BackupPC. I mounted a Share with SMB and that works, but when I wanted to start BackupPC, BackupPC did not start. I only found a log directory on the Share with the LOG file in which was an error like bind() failed. Does anybody know why SMB does not work with BackupPC? Or are there any other solutions like to mount a FTP connection? I hope anybody can help me. Greets Simon Köstlin - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
