dan wrote:
> Rsync v3 does greatly(samba's words) improve memory usage and file
> list transfer time, as well as allowing transfers to begin before
> the full file list is tranfered. hardlink transfers are also much
> faster in v3.
>
> Other nice features are support for extended attributes
Hi,
> 3) The best choice was/is/seems to be to use rsyncd.
> I got excellent network speed and all files were succesfully
> backed up.
> Compared to Samba you can use Includes and Excludes lists. So
> you get all the benefits from rsync, but save the extra work
> to setup SSH and root-access f
> The biggest problem with the archive bit, however, is that
> the process assumes that only one application will clear the
> archive bit, when there could actually be several of them."
You mean when more than one application is used for Backups?
Greetings,
Hendrik
---
archive bit = evil. the archive bit is actually satan's unkle on his
mother's side.
anyway,
I don't know if there is a solution to the combination of I/O bottlenecks
and file checksumming with rsync taking a log time.
Rsync v3 does greatly(samba's words) improve memory usage and file list
trans
Several people have discussed creating incremental archives,
and there's the archiveme.pl script, but that creates a full
archive first and then extracts the required files out of it.
That approach isn't going to work for me.
I need a script that gets the "right" files first time.
So I modifed tar
Is there a way to limit the maximum time that a backup can run for? I
am almost certain that I can remember seeing this mentioned somewhere,
but can't find it in the documentation.
I have a couple of off-site servers connected via OpenVPN tunnels over
ADSL links that can (when a user dumps a l
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:53:32 +0200
Sam Przyswa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As user root I have no right to start BackupPC:
>
> soleil-xl:/etc/init.d# /etc/init.d/backuppc start
> Starting backuppc: /usr/share/backuppc/bin/BackupPC: Wrong user: my
> userid is 0, instead of 33 (www-data)
Hendrik Friedel wrote:
>>It would be nice to be able to use WindowsXP+'s index as a reference or
>> have the rsyncd on the windows machine maintain all the checksum
>> information but I know of no way and no plans to do this.
>
> Another option would be the archive bit, wouldn't it?
Read: The
Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> I have the same Problem. The backuppc performance is really poor with
> rsync. Have you tried samba for the transfer?
Success Story: After some testing I finally succeeded setting up our
linux server and some win xp/2k clients to work with BackupPC.
After spending l
Hi again,
>It would be nice to be able to use WindowsXP+'s index as a reference or
have the rsyncd on the windows machine maintain all the checksum information
but I know of no way and no plans to do this.
Another option would be the archive bit, wouldn't it?
Greetings,
Hendrik
_
Samba will copy the every file in it's entirety eating up bandwidth! and it
doesn't work remotely very well. It also is delivered via an abstraction
layer to the filesystem so you can't pull over permissions, every file ends
up having the permissions assigned to the samba share, and ownership
chan
Dear Kurt, dear all,
I have the same Problem. The backuppc performance is really poor with rsync.
Have you tried samba for the transfer?
> PS: To give at least something back to this community, I
> thought about writing down my experiences (from a beginners
> point of view), I hope this is the
12 matches
Mail list logo
