[qmailtoaster] Re: backup question

2012-07-02 Thread Eric Shubert

On 07/01/2012 09:01 PM, Maxwell Smart wrote:


On 07/01/2012 07:59 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:

On 07/01/2012 07:47 PM, Maxwell Smart wrote:

Rsync is appropriate for backing up mail stores and configurations
(mysql database needs to be addressed separately). I don't see it
playing a role in HA configurations, except for providing backups,
which should still be done. HA, like raid, is *not* a backup solution.


I fail to understand why two identical servers in separate locations
doesn't qualify as a backup solution.  Both servers have secondary
backup hard drives with duplicated data and the second server takes the
place of the first if the first is ever broken.   Why is that not
desirable?



I didn't say that's not desirable. I said it is not a backup solution.

As soon as the second server takes the place of the first, where's
your backup?



On the backup drive on the second server :)


When you say 'backup drive', is that a raid mirror on the 2nd host? If 
so, it's not a backup. Any drive that's live (or can become live in a 
recovery situation) should not be considered to be a backup.



Well, your in crisis mode at that point scrambling to get server 1 back
up.  Nothing is ever ideal when it comes to computers,


Simply not true. Nothing is perfect, but ideal is achievable.


but it would suffice in my situation


Which is what you need to be concerned with.
One size does not fit all.

--
-Eric 'shubes'




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com
For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com



[qmailtoaster] Re: backup question

2012-07-02 Thread Eric Shubert

On 07/01/2012 11:16 PM, Maxwell Smart wrote:


On 07/01/2012 07:59 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:

On 07/01/2012 07:47 PM, Maxwell Smart wrote:

Rsync is appropriate for backing up mail stores and configurations
(mysql database needs to be addressed separately). I don't see it
playing a role in HA configurations, except for providing backups,
which should still be done. HA, like raid, is *not* a backup solution.


I fail to understand why two identical servers in separate locations
doesn't qualify as a backup solution.  Both servers have secondary
backup hard drives with duplicated data and the second server takes the
place of the first if the first is ever broken.   Why is that not
desirable?



I didn't say that's not desirable. I said it is not a backup solution.

As soon as the second server takes the place of the first, where's
your backup?



I am curious, what would you do?

-


I don't have a requirement for the highest level of availability. My 
users can get along without access to email for a couple hours 
(occasionally, not regularly), so I don't have a hot spare with their 
emails stored on it. That'd be nice of course, but it's just not worth 
the time and effort setting it up and maintaining it. The production 
host is reliable enough that it provides sufficient availability. I do 
have a backup MX which can receive and relay incoming messages in the 
event that the primary goes down. This merely provides quicker access to 
messages which would be sent while the primary is down, and is not very 
critical. Sending servers will typically keep messages in their queue 
for 12+ hours (which I personally think is excessive).


I backup user and configuration data to a raid-1 mirror which is at a 
separate location, using rsync that runs as a cron job. The backup 
datasets never go live. They're only used for disaster recovery, and 
occasionally (but more often) when a user inadvertently deletes a mail 
folder or messages. Backups should provide this type of recoverability, 
which HA setups do not do on their own. Hence, HA is not a backup solution.


--
-Eric 'shubes'




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com
For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com