All,
First: the backuppc website needs to be updated to reflect that this list is a
members-only list. I originally sent this email without joining but received
the Your post awaits moderation email. So I joined the list and have
resent it.
I have an interesting situation. It appears that
Dave Fancella wrote:
All,
First: the backuppc website needs to be updated to reflect that this list is
a
members-only list. I originally sent this email without joining but received
the Your post awaits moderation email. So I joined the list and have
resent it.
I have an interesting
Le mercredi, 31 janvier 2007 17:20, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom a écrit :
You probably also want to change:
$Conf{MaxBackups} = 4;
to something lower. that's the number of backups which will run
simultaneously. I've found that the default of '4' is too high for most
backup servers, and that '2'
Le jeudi, 1 février 2007 11:01, vous avez écrit :
Linux sees four processors in my servers: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz
So 4 is a good number for me? There are only 2 physical CPUs however.
Hyperthreading (at least I guess 3.2GHz Xeons are hyperthreaded, and not
dual-core) doesn't give you
Holger Parplies wrote:
But lots of other people including myself run rsync without errors so it
has to be something unique to your situation.
well, no. You don't rule out bugs by it works for me, not even by it
works for everyone I know. I'm sure you know that.
Anything is possible I
I noticed that my localhost (server with backuppc installed), was
running the rsync command for over 8 hours and ate up over a gig of
memory last night. . . .. yet had a zero size backup.
I didnt' see any errors at all in the backuppc logs, but in the system
logs I noticed an oddity:
Feb
I'm running the du and such right now.
However, I ran this before and the numbers reflect exactly those I'd
expect if localhost was not receiving backups. Here's some more
evidence towards that:
jkyle$ ls /Volumes/backups/pc/*
/Volumes/backups/pc/airto-old:
0 LOG.022007
Timothy J. Massey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/01/2007
12:22:18 AM:
Timothy J. Massey wrote:
rsync: read error: No route to host
This one would concern me most. I thought there was a note somewhere in
the docs that says clients should have reverse DNS set up for them,
When I say 3 different locations, I don't mean 3 different floors of
the same building. I mean three different client sites, miles apart,
with completely different *everything*, including network hardware
brand. Some of them are HP ProCurve switches (our preferred brand)
but nowhere near
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And we're talking about multiple servers in multiple locations talking
to multiple hosts of different brands and hardware chipsets. It's not
related to a *specific* *anything* hardware-wise on *either* end. The
*only* thing in common is RHEL4!
Do they traverse a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is *NOT* the networking hardware! This is NOT an isolated situation.
It's not just **ONE** serer that is having this problem. And despite
the fact that others have made this configuration work, I am *very*
confident that you can reproduce it too. Take 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not a fan of continuously applying zillions of updates. How in the
world are you supposed to test this stuff?
There's a big difference between a distribution like fedora where
updates are to get new features as fast as possible and one like RHEL
(and thus
I upgraded To version 3 before that i had my pool compressed now when
backups starts it look like it not comparing to the old pool and doing so
not doing links and just downloading files again. Is there a way to fix
this?
-
Hi,
James Kyle wrote on 01.02.2007 at 08:25:57 [[BackupPC-users] Help with one last
hitch after 3.0 upgrade]:
I noticed that my localhost (server with backuppc installed), was
running the rsync command for over 8 hours and ate up over a gig of
memory last night. . . .. yet had a zero size
Les Mikesell wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not a fan of continuously applying zillions of updates. How in the
world are you supposed to test this stuff?
There's a big difference between a distribution like fedora where
updates are to get new features as fast as possible and
Hi,
Jenny Paterson wrote on 01.02.2007 at 18:53:55 [[BackupPC-users] Using Rsync
and files are being copied again]:
I upgraded To version 3 before that i had my pool compressed
and now? What is $Conf{CompressLevel} set to (and what value did it have
before the upgrade)? Do you override it in
On Thursday 01 February 2007 5:54 am, Les Stott wrote:
First: the backuppc website needs to be updated to reflect that this list
is a members-only list. I originally sent this email without joining but
received the Your post awaits moderation email. So I joined the list
and have resent
Hi,
Les Stott wrote on 02.02.2007 at 13:21:49 [Re: [BackupPC-users] RHEL4 fresh
load - child exited prematurely]:
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not gung-ho, I too am conservative, and
you have to be in production environments. But i don't think you can be
ultra conservative. Clients want
Dave Fancella wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007 5:54 am, Les Stott wrote:
No domain, the computer's hostname is just ghostwheel. I'm a home
user, so
I'm sitting behind a cheap linksys wireless nat router, with the router
configured as a gateway and all pc's use it as their dns server.
The real question is why your backups and your nightly runs are taking
so long to complete.
One reason might be network bandwidth. In which case, you're probably
stuck. I'm gonna guess this isn't the problem though. If you're on a LAN
almost certainly this isn't it. It's easy to measure this.
20 matches
Mail list logo
