Steve writes:
> Is there a parameter that sets priority of once backup over another,
> or do all the BackupPC_dump processes start at the same level? Maybe
> that would be a $Conf that could be added...
In 3.2.0beta0 there is for admin jobs, but not backups.
See $Conf{CmdQueueNice}.
Craig
James writes:
> I'm reposting this as I evidently tried to steal a thread before.
>
> Since upgrading a very busy BackupPC server to 3.1, it's been falling
> farther and farther behind due to disk contention between the nightly
> admin jobs and backups which ran 24x7 on the 2.x set up. I asked
Michael Stowe wrote:
> 2) I recently experienced this on an XP laptop after upgrading
> cygwin/rsync after several hundred successful backups. After downgrading,
> the problem has gone away. I can only speculate why this machine is
> unique, but perhaps it's a clue that it has two active networks
Jim Leonard wrote:
> Peter Walter wrote:
>
>>> Why can't you use ext3 dump? (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dump/)
>>>
>>>
>> I might consider it, if I could find the manual so I could read up on
>> how to use it. Could you point me to a link?
>>
>
> Was that a joke? The link
swedishorr wrote:
> Does anyone here have a solution (any solution) for getting their BackupPC
> backup files onto tape?
Use your filesystem's "dump" facility. "man dump" for more info.
--
Jim Leonard (trix...@oldskool.org)http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project:
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Jim Leonard wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> With backuppc the issue is not so much fragmentation within a file as
>>> the distance between the directory entry, the inode, and the file
>>> content. When creating a new file, filesystems generally attempt to
>>> allocate th
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > I read the docs before setting it up and it was very obvious to me that
> > planning was required. Then again, I've been doing this for a while.
> > But it *was* in the documentation, if not in-your-face explicit.
>
> OK - can you show me where in the documenta
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > Now it is you who is using the straw-man argument, because backuppc
> > *can* easily be backed up at the file level. You just don't like how
> > long it takes and/or that it doesn't work quickly with your favorite
> > utility.
>
> Really - then why do people
Peter Walter wrote:
>> Why can't you use ext3 dump? (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dump/)
>>
> I might consider it, if I could find the manual so I could read up on
> how to use it. Could you point me to a link?
Was that a joke? The link was right after the question mark in my
original se
Hello All,
I am currently using BackupPC to backup several servers (20 or so). BackupPC
is running from a linux box running CentOS 5.3. There is seemingly no issue
with the BackupPC operations.
However, I am trying to get these backups to tape via Yosemite / Barracudaware.
I'm not getting
Peter Walter wrote:
> What I don't understand is why such a great backup system such as
> backuppc cannot reasonably be used to backup itself - it seems to me
> that since backuppc "knows" it's own architecture, a way could be found
> to do it efficiently.
Actually, backuppc doesn't know that
Les Mikesell wrote at about 13:50:54 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> >
> > Well (re)nice=20, would completely stop BackupPC_dump per my man pages at
> > least:
> >20 (the affected processes will run only when nothing else in the
> >system wants to
Les Mikesell wrote at about 13:42:16 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > Les Mikesell wrote at about 12:15:34 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > > Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > > > > 2) you lose power/crash while expiring
> > > > This would just mea
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
>
> Well (re)nice=20, would completely stop BackupPC_dump per my man pages at
> least:
> 20 (the affected processes will run only when nothing else in the
> system wants to)
I'm not sure about the scheduler internals, but I'd read the 'nothing
else wants
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote at about 13:58:41 -0400 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> It seems like a lot of issues with file-level BackupPC backups (both
> full and incremental) could be solved if we had the following:
>
> 1. No chain renumbering - either by using the full file md5sum or other
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote at about 12:15:34 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > > > 2) you lose power/crash while expiring
> > > This would just mean that expiry not completed meaning that some
> > > expired files not deleted. Same prob
Peter Walter wrote at about 13:27:38 -0400 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Peter Walter wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Leonard wrote:
> >>
> >>> Peter Walter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> I have access to "cloud storage" I would like to take
> advantage o
Les Mikesell wrote at about 12:15:34 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > > 2) you lose power/crash while expiring
> > This would just mean that expiry not completed meaning that some
> > expired files not deleted. Same problem occurs if power/crash during
> >
Steve wrote at about 13:29:45 -0400 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Jeffrey J.
> Kosowsky wrote:
> > Les Mikesell wrote at about 11:46:42 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > > Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > > > Steve wrote at about 12:02:32 -0400 on Tues
Holger Parplies wrote at about 19:00:40 +0200 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Hi,
>
> Jim Wilcoxson wrote on 2009-08-31 08:08:48 -0400 [Re: [BackupPC-users]
> Keeping servers in sync]:
> > [...]
> > I did some reading today about BackupPC's storage layout and design.
> > I haven't finishe
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Jeffrey J.
Kosowsky wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote at about 11:46:42 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > > Steve wrote at about 12:02:32 -0400 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > > > Is there a parameter that sets priority of once
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Peter Walter wrote:
>
>> Jim Leonard wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Walter wrote:
>>>
>>>
I have access to "cloud storage" I would like to take
advantage of, but can't because of the hardlink issue. My (klugey)
solution at present is to use a backuppc s
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
>
> > > Name the top 10 that worry you most so that I can get a feeling for
> > > how hard they are to solve. Again, I can't address a generic fear.
> >
> > 1) you've run out of disk space, corrupting the database
> Would cause similar problem with current implement
Hi,
Jim Wilcoxson wrote on 2009-08-31 08:08:48 -0400 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Keeping
servers in sync]:
> [...]
> I did some reading today about BackupPC's storage layout and design.
> I haven't finished yet, but one thing stuck out:
>
> "BackupPC_link reads the NewFileList written by BackupPC_dump
Les Mikesell wrote at about 11:46:42 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > Steve wrote at about 12:02:32 -0400 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > > Is there a parameter that sets priority of once backup over another,
> > > or do all the BackupPC_dump processes
Holger Parplies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jim Leonard wrote on 2009-08-31 23:55:10 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Problems
> with hardlink-based backups...]:
>> [...]
>> Why can't you use ext3 dump? (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dump/)
>
> I don't know the details of the dump program you are referring t
Jim Leonard wrote:
> Peter Walter wrote:
>
>>> What is the problem with your cloud storage such that you can't use it
>>> to make a backup of BackupPC? What cloud storage do you have access to,
>>> and what operating system and filesystem are you using to run BackupPC?
>>>
>>>
>> I
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> Steve wrote at about 12:02:32 -0400 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > Is there a parameter that sets priority of once backup over another,
> > or do all the BackupPC_dump processes start at the same level? Maybe
> > that would be a $Conf that could be added...
> >
Steve wrote at about 12:02:32 -0400 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Is there a parameter that sets priority of once backup over another,
> or do all the BackupPC_dump processes start at the same level? Maybe
> that would be a $Conf that could be added...
> evets
That sounds like an interesti
Is there a parameter that sets priority of once backup over another,
or do all the BackupPC_dump processes start at the same level? Maybe
that would be a $Conf that could be added...
evets
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Jeffrey J.
Kosowsky wrote:
> James Ward wrote at about 08:16:18 -0700 on Tu
James Ward wrote at about 08:16:18 -0700 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> All,
>
> I'm reposting this as I evidently tried to steal a thread before.
>
> Since upgrading a very busy BackupPC server to 3.1, it's been falling
> farther and farther behind due to disk contention between the nig
Hopefully we can put this part of the thread to rest.
I will try to summarize my conclusions based on the vociferous
feedback I have heard and then throw out some compromise roadmap
suggestions that may be workable and helpful:
- While a hybrid database/filesystem approach would certainly bring a
I can offer two clues:
1) I experienced this on an XP system where a personal firewall had been
installed, but turned off. Deinstalling the personal firewall (and
turning on the built-in one) solved the problem.
2) I recently experienced this on an XP laptop after upgrading
cygwin/rsync after s
All,
I'm reposting this as I evidently tried to steal a thread before.
Since upgrading a very busy BackupPC server to 3.1, it's been falling
farther and farther behind due to disk contention between the nightly
admin jobs and backups which ran 24x7 on the 2.x set up. I asked for
help here and t
Hi,
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote on 2009-09-01 01:18:28 -0400 [Re: [BackupPC-users]
Problems with hardlink-based backups...]:
> Michael Stowe wrote at about 23:15:15 -0500 on Monday, August 31, 2009:
> >
> > > I don't see the issue here.
> > > - New files are created only when a new file is adde
Jacob Hydeman wrote at about 21:31:18 -0700 on Monday, August 31, 2009:
> The simple file sharing is a requirement of the winexe service. You can read
> more about it here: http://eol.ovh.org/winexe/
>
> I am looking into the XP Home issue, and some suggest that you can change
> permissions a
Les Mikesell wrote at about 01:40:27 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > > > > > I guess I can't answer your question without knowing what use
> > cases
> > > > > > you are worried about.
> > > > >
> > > > > All of them.
> >
> > Name the top 10 t
Hi,
Jim Leonard wrote on 2009-08-31 23:55:10 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Problems
with hardlink-based backups...]:
> [...]
> Why can't you use ext3 dump? (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dump/)
I don't know the details of the dump program you are referring to, but those I
have checked all have
> As I mentioned this is not (well) documented in the BackupPC
> documentation and continues to trip up new and not-so-new users
> alike. Also, there are use cases where you can't have a single FS for
> BackupPC (though Michael Stowe has decided to call them "fringe")
I prefer not to be misconstr
On 9/1/09, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Jim Wilcoxson wrote:
>> Hi Les - thanks for trying it out!
>>
>> It sounds like you are seeing about 300GB in 1200 minutes, or 4
>> minutes per GB. That's about what I see on average when backing up a
>> real system initially. Yesterday I backed up 33GB on a G5 M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> Adam Goryachev wrote at about 14:14:49 +1000 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> > > Jim Leonard wrote at about 20:20:59 -0500 on Monday, August 31, 2009:
> > > > Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:14:20PM -0400, Peter Walter wrote:
> I am therefore restricted to copying the primary backup server itself.
> The intent is not to be able to recover the targets directly - the aim
> is to recover the primary backup server, and, from there, recover the
> targets. If
42 matches
Mail list logo
