David Rees wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (Mostly) agreed. If you can afford a hardware raid controller, raid 5 is a
>> good choice.
>>
>
> To clarify, a hardware raid controller with battery backed RAM is a
> good choice fo RAID 5,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
dan wrote:
> I tend to agree that reiserfs doesn't add enough performance to deviate
> from ext3. some operations are much much faster but not many. In MOST
> situations, the only thing reiserfs is good for is high numbers on a
> benchmark. In the r
I tend to agree that reiserfs doesn't add enough performance to deviate from
ext3. some operations are much much faster but not many. In MOST
situations, the only thing reiserfs is good for is high numbers on a
benchmark. In the real world, on most systems, it doesn't do much. I think
reiserfs
Adam Goryachev wrote:
>
>> there is the I/O caching. zfs caches checks of I/O and then reorders it
>> to do a large, more-sequential write. it is also a copy-on-write
>> filesystem which handles disk writes in a cache then reorder then write
>> method also.
>>
>> also. tale a look
>> http://www.
Adam Goryachev wrote:
>
> If I found an idle system that I could create various FS on, with
> various parameters, what series of tests should I run to compare 'real
> world' backuppc performance?
One relevant one would be from a benchmark called 'postmark'. It was
originally available from the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
dan wrote:
> just some more info, I ran the same directory creation test on a live
> zfs filesystem on nexenta install. i got very similar performance
> differences between ext3 and zfs as i did in vmware except it went from
> 45seconds on ext3 to 15
just some more info, I ran the same directory creation test on a live zfs
filesystem on nexenta install. i got very similar performance differences
between ext3 and zfs as i did in vmware except it went from 45seconds on
ext3 to 15 seconds and from about 3 seconds to what felt instant on zfs. i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
dan wrote:
> can anyone here help me through this? I would like to write a guide when
> I'm done but I have to be able to get the system up first! :)
One of the general complaints that seems to apply to most 'alternative'
OS and applications Howev
dan wrote:
> can anyone here help me through this? I would like to write a guide when
> I'm done but I have to be able to get the system up first! :)
One of the general complaints that seems to apply to most 'alternative'
OS and applications However, one piece of advise is if you can't
install
nice job Kimball. Big thanks to Ludovic!
has this been submitted to the devel mailing list for inclusion?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Kimball Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This is to confirm that this patch works on 3.0.0 as well!
> Thanks!
>
> -- Kimball
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 1
This is to confirm that this patch works on 3.0.0 as well!
Thanks!
-- Kimball
On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Kimball Larsen wrote:
On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:37 AM, dan wrote:
please inform us if it works on 3.0! this is a great little add.
very nice
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:27 AM, N
On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:37 AM, dan wrote:
please inform us if it works on 3.0! this is a great little add.
very nice
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Nicholas Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ludovic - freaking sweet man. I just applied that patch.
Kimball - I believe the images are ge
I have an idea. It would be cool if the graphs also showed the total size
prior to pooling/compression as a line overlayed on the existing graphs.
I think this data is exposed as $fullSizeTot and $incrSizeTot. I'll see if
I can figure it out sometime today.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Ludo
please inform us if it works on 3.0! this is a great little add. very nice
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Nicholas Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ludovic - freaking sweet man. I just applied that patch.
>
> Kimball - I believe the images are generated during the backuppc nightly
> run.
Ludovic - freaking sweet man. I just applied that patch.
Kimball - I believe the images are generated during the backuppc nightly
run. (mine also shows broken images on 3.1). Can't wait to check it
tomorrow morning and show my boss who already is in love with BackupPC.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at
On Feb 28, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Ludovic Drolez wrote:
> dan gmail.com> writes:
>> this is interesting! what file does this diff apply to?
>
> You can 'cd' to the original source directory, or to your installation
> directory (maybe /usr/share/backuppc) and then run:
>
> patch -p1
> Oh yes, I've f
dan gmail.com> writes:
> this is interesting! what file does this diff apply to?
You can 'cd' to the original source directory, or to your installation
directory (maybe /usr/share/backuppc) and then run:
patch -p1 http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
this is interesting! what file does this diff apply to? can you give the
command to patch the file please? and possibly put that in the wiki OR i
will put it in the wiki if you put it here. thanks
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ludovic Drolez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I've made a
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit lemonbit.nl> writes:
> The $TopDir relocation after installing a packaged version is
> discussed pretty regularly on this list (every week?). The easier
> solution is to mount your backup drive/array on the location used by
> the packager (/var/lib/backuppc in the cas
dan wrote:
> that covers all but the webserver. I installed apache22 via ports but I
> don't know what I'm doing wrong because when I install backuppc from the
> tgz, I can browse to the backuppc directory i created in apache's root
> and click on the CGI but it just spits out text. basically
dan schrieb:
(...)
> on a side note, i did some rudementary benchmarks on an ubuntu 7.10
> server install and a freebsd7 install in vmware server. UFS was about
> 10% slower than ext3 in creating 10,000 directories and about 20% slower
> at creating 10,000 hard links to 1 file(same *virtual h
I'm trying to get BackupPC running on freebsd right now but I have limited
experience with the OS(though the experience I have taught me that it kicks
major butt!).There is a guide on the wiki but it is incomplete.
Does anyone know how to do this?
what is working:
I have enabled ZFS on startu
David Rees wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (Mostly) agreed. If you can afford a hardware raid controller, raid 5 is a
>> good choice.
>
> To clarify, a hardware raid controller with battery backed RAM is a
> good choice fo RAID 5, otherwise i
David Rees schrieb:
(...)
> For example, if you perform a small write across two stripes, that
> means you have to read/write two 64kB stripes in your case. By
> aligning writes, you could have avoided this and only read/write a
> single 64kB stripe. It's pretty easy to see how this might affect
Hi all,
I have a problem while using the '--include-from=FILE' option in
$Conf{RsyncArgs}.
In fact it only applies to the first sharename, but not to the others.
The first share (diskC) will be backed up correctly, that is with only
the requested file extensions, while the other share (diskD) in
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Mostly) agreed. If you can afford a hardware raid controller, raid 5 is a
> good choice.
To clarify, a hardware raid controller with battery backed RAM is a
good choice fo RAID 5, otherwise it will either be very slow f
26 matches
Mail list logo
