Hi,
I`m trying to run a Backup from an Netware 6.5 server running rsyc 2.6.3. I
tested if the netware side is working by executing the following command on
my backuppc system directly on the console:
rsync -D --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group --links --hard-links --times
--block-size=2048 --r
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:20:06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
> Thanks for the response Craig.
>
> I noticed that pool and cpool were getting updated over at
> /var/lib/backuppc also (don't understand why I wasn't getting these link
> errors before ?!)
>
> So I moved the var/lib/backuppc versions
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:57:45 -0500, "Jinshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
>
> Currently I am using an old PC as backup server. It takes very long time
> for BackupPC 3.0 to backup about 140GB data. Even when no file is
> changed, it still takes more than 24 hours. I would like to know wha
I'm glad your speed has improved. Now that your CPU is not the bottleneck,
you have 2 remaining bottlenecks which are the USB hard drive and the
100Mb/s network. Immediately I suspect that the network is the bottleneck
because of the 6MB/s which is pretty typical of 100Mb/s networking. An
inexpe
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> This is topic is discussed pretty regularly on this mailinglist.
> Please also search the archives. Because of the heavy use of hardlinks
> breaking the pool up into smaller batches is not really feasible and
> indeed rsync doesn't really handle very large
Thank you all again for your responses. I setup the backup server on a
better computer now: Pentium 4 2.4GHz with 760M ram. The system hard
drive interface is also faster (ATA133, instead of ATA66 on old
computer). The backup files are still on the same USB drive. The data
files are on a new co
Maybe it's just me. But I still find it philosophically wrong for a
piece of open-source software to RELY on Javascript for functionality
(i.e., I don't object to the use of Javascript, as long as core
functionality is still accessible without it). Open-source web
software ought to be usable in tex
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/04 01:29 , Paul Fox wrote:
> > oh, sure -- there are lots of ways of exporting a browser session --
> > VNC, or even X11 over ssh (which is very slow, but okay once in a
> > blue moon). but i spend 90% of my time in ssh within an xterm
On 01/04 01:29 , Paul Fox wrote:
> oh, sure -- there are lots of ways of exporting a browser session --
> VNC, or even X11 over ssh (which is very slow, but okay once in a
> blue moon). but i spend 90% of my time in ssh within an xterm,
> and elinks is (or, rather, "was") _so_ quick to use for a q
I have been playing with the "BackupFilesOnly" and "BackupFilesExclude"
settings to no avail.
Does anyone know if Backuppc can backup only certain files in a directory?
If so, can you assist in an example config?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ogle
Se
Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 schrieb Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom:
> On 01/04 09:51 , Paul Archer wrote:
> > [lvm snapshot]
Snapshots are stil on my Todo list and probably also a good approach to
backing up a BackupPc Server. I went for the stop-every-daemon and
dump-the-whole-disk solution because it w
Dear backuppc users,
first of all I like to thank you for this nice little backup tool! The
idea of using "standard" unix/windows protocols and file formats is
simple and powerful.
I am currently analyzing BackupPC if it fits our needs for backup
software. I installed version 3.1.0 on a SuSE Linu
On 01/07 07:47 , Les Mikesell wrote:
> Since it works at the
> partition image level it shouldn't have the usual problems with
> hardlinks and it might be possible to use the underlying tool against an
> lvm snapshot without having to shut down.
if you make an image of an LVM snapshot, you migh
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
>> We are using LVM2 for our backuppc partition. How much disk space would
>> you estimate a snapshot would take for a partition containing ~700Gb of
>> data? The LVM partition itself is roughly ~1.4Tb in size.
>
> Snapshots should be sized based on how much dat
On 01/06 01:39 , Sean Carolan wrote:
> We are using LVM2 for our backuppc partition. How much disk space would
> you estimate a snapshot would take for a partition containing ~700Gb of
> data? The LVM partition itself is roughly ~1.4Tb in size.
Snapshots should be sized based on how much data
On 01/04 09:51 , Paul Archer wrote:
> If you are using lvm2 (which is pretty common, given the necessary
> single-filesystem size for backuppc), then you should be able to take a
> snapshot of the logical volume, and backup from that.
I've tried that with backing up to tape. Unfortunately, any d
16 matches
Mail list logo
