Jim Leonard schrieb:
> Tino Schwarze wrote:
> > I'm using bacula to backup the generated tar files and have them deleted
> > afterwards.
>
> This is off-topic, I apologize, but if you are using Bacula, then why do
> you have a BackupPC installation?
I also use bacula and backuppc to backup some
Hi,
dan wrote on 2009-09-02 19:26:29 -0600 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Which FS?]:
> > > Sorting the stat()
> > > calls by inode number would help, but I doubt 'ls' is optimized for
> > > such an unusual usage case (but I haven't checked, so I might be wrong).
> >
> > that is the job of the SCSI
Mark Phillips wrote:
> I am setting up a new backuppc server. Are there any advantages to using
> an external drive (USB or eSATA) over an internal drive to store the
> backups? The server is an older Pentium 3 500 MHz box running Debian
> Linux. I plan on using ssh/rsync to do the backups for o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I recently had some issues with backups failing during the backup in
some strange way, which caused all files after that point to be marked
as "deleted". This caused the following backup to need to re-transfer
all of those files again the next time. (u
Tino Schwarze wrote:
> I'm using bacula to backup the generated tar files and have them deleted
> afterwards.
This is off-topic, I apologize, but if you are using Bacula, then why do
you have a BackupPC installation?
--
Jim Leonard (trix...@oldskool.org)http://www.oldskool.org/
Help
>
>
> You seem to have the illusion that sql can magically avoid the head motions
> that
> make backuppc slow while still getting the same things on the same disks.
> While
> it is possible to tune most sql servers to put different tables on
> different
> drives, there's a fair chance that in a de
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky
wrote:
> 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:
>
>
I might point out that if you rsync between two windows machine using the
same version of cwrsync or deltacopy(which is basically still cwrsync but a
different version) the transfer speeds are higher but not anywhere near a
smb transfer.
One solution might be to create a shadow copy, then explorer
> more disk activity than on a 'normal' directory. Sorting the stat()
> > calls by inode number would help, but I doubt 'ls' is optimized for
> > such an unusual usage case (but I haven't checked, so I might be wrong).
>
> that is the job of the SCSI (and not SATA) command queuing,
>
another option for server syncing is to auto iscsi or aoe and add the remote
block device to a raid1 of the storage drive. The up side of this would be
online syncing but down down side(s) are network bandwidth during sync,
inability for linux md driver to skip already synced blocks.
A workaround
Hi again
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 03:32:00 +0200, Holger Parplies wrote:
> > wrong, the ls -l doesnt need to move to the files inode to do
> > anything, the directory have all the necessary info.
> sorry, but that is just not true. 'ls -l' needs to do a stat() to
Oops, you are right...
>
>
> Starting completely from scratch I'd probably try OpenSolaris/zfs and
> use its snapshot send/receive for offsite copies. With Linux, probably
> xfs on a 64-bit version. These are based on reading about their
> features, not actual testing, though. Realistically, if you are going
> to most
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:05 AM, 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
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:
> 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 creatin
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Mark Phillips wrote:
> > I am setting up a new backuppc server. Are there any advantages to using
> > an external drive (USB or eSATA) over an internal drive to store the
> > backups? The server is an older Pentium 3 500 MHz box running Debia
/// > > But a program should not be dependent on volume management. Volume
> > > management is a general tool that can be helpful but should not be
> > > required.
> >
> / > you think that expanding an SQL database would be different?
>
> It would be *very* different since you can easily copy
Can I offer an alternative solution? How about using bittorrent?
if you patch the btmakemeta and download.py files as show here:
http://osdir.com/ml/network.bit-torrent.general/2003-12/msg00356.html
(stop backuppc, unmount filesystem)
you can create a torrent of your block device
btmakemeta /dev
Les Mikesell wrote:
> a VMware .vmx image file using the options to pre-allocate the space and
> segment into chunks as an intermediate that would be directly usable by
> a vmware guest.
There is a solution for VMware vSphere (ESX/VC 4.0) which would be
perfect. VMware Data Recovery claims to b
Pieter Wuille wrote:
> >> The one thing that would bother me about this approach is that you would
>> have a fairly long window of time while the remote filesystem chunks are
>> being updated. While rsync normally creates a copy of an individual
>> file and does not delete the original until th
Mark Phillips wrote:
> I am setting up a new backuppc server. Are there any advantages to using
> an external drive (USB or eSATA) over an internal drive to store the
> backups? The server is an older Pentium 3 500 MHz box running Debian
> Linux. I plan on using ssh/rsync to do the backups for o
Mark Phillips wrote:
> I am setting up a new backuppc server. Are there any advantages to using
> an external drive (USB or eSATA) over an internal drive to store the
> backups? The server is an older Pentium 3 500 MHz box running Debian
> Linux. I plan on using ssh/rsync to do the backups for oth
I am setting up a new backuppc server. Are there any advantages to using an
external drive (USB or eSATA) over an internal drive to store the backups?
The server is an older Pentium 3 500 MHz box running Debian Linux. I plan on
using ssh/rsync to do the backups for other Linux boxes, a Windows box,
I third this suggestion.
On Sep 2, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> Tino Schwarze wrote at about 09:41:46 +0200 on Wednesday, September
> 2, 2009:
>> IMO the easiest approach would be:
>> - if BackupPC_nightly starts, it acquires a lock, then waits for
>> backups
>> to complete
Tino Schwarze wrote at about 09:41:46 +0200 on Wednesday, September 2, 2009:
> IMO the easiest approach would be:
> - if BackupPC_nightly starts, it acquires a lock, then waits for backups
> to complete
> - no new backups start until BackupPC_nightly finished
>
> This should be rather easy
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:24:09PM -0400, Jon Craig wrote:
> > I tried renicing everything:
> >
> > jew...@kw157:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ head -2 BackupPC_nightly
> > #!/usr/bin/perl
> > setpriority(0, $$, -20);
> >
> > jew...@kw157:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ head -2 BackupPC_dump
> > #!/usr/bin/per
You are correct on both counts.
On Sep 2, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Jon Craig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, James Ward wrote:
>> I tried renicing everything:
>>
>> jew...@kw157:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ head -2 BackupPC_nightly
>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>> setpriority(0, $$, -20);
>>
>> jew...@kw157:
> Michael Stowe wrote:
>> After a little more poking around, it seems the problem goes away if one
>> of the networks is disabled. Next thing for me to try: binding rsync
>> to
>> the correct network and leaving both active.
>
> Since smb works and this seems to be a name resolution issue, maybe
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, James Ward wrote:
> I tried renicing everything:
>
> jew...@kw157:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ head -2 BackupPC_nightly
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> setpriority(0, $$, -20);
>
> jew...@kw157:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ head -2 BackupPC_dump
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> setpriority(0, $$, 20
I tried renicing everything:
jew...@kw157:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ head -2 BackupPC_nightly
#!/usr/bin/perl
setpriority(0, $$, -20);
jew...@kw157:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ head -2 BackupPC_dump
#!/usr/bin/perl
setpriority(0, $$, 20);
The result is, as some predicted, negligible.
Also, someone po
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:14:05AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > In our case, the BackupPC pool is stored on an XFS filesystem on an LVM
> > volume, allowing a xfsfreeze/sync/snapshot/xfsunfreeze, and using
> > devfiles.pl on the snapshot. Instead of xfsfreeze+unfreeze, a ba
Les Mikesell wrote at about 10:14:05 -0500 on Wednesday, September 2, 2009:
> Pieter Wuille wrote:
> >
> > To overcome this issue, i wrote a perl/fuse filesystem that allows you to
> > "mount" a block device (or real file) as a directory containing files
> > part0001.img, part0002.img, ... eac
Pieter Wuille wrote:
>
> To overcome this issue, i wrote a perl/fuse filesystem that allows you to
> "mount" a block device (or real file) as a directory containing files
> part0001.img, part0002.img, ... each representing 1 GiB of data of the
> original device:
>
> https://svn.ulyssis.org/repos
Jim Leonard wrote at about 22:18:07 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> 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 document
2009/9/2 Les Mikesell :
> Where might I find some readable documentation on how windows permissions
> actually work? I was under the impression that the Backup Operators group
> always had access while an Administrator might have to change ownership to get
> it - but I have a machine where that do
Michael Stowe wrote:
> After a little more poking around, it seems the problem goes away if one
> of the networks is disabled. Next thing for me to try: binding rsync to
> the correct network and leaving both active.
Since smb works and this seems to be a name resolution issue, maybe DNS is set
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Daniel
Berteaud wrote:
> Le mercredi 02 septembre 2009 à 12:10 +0200, Pieter Wuille a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> trying to come up with a way for efficiently synchronising a BackupPC archive
>> on one server with a remote and encrypted offsite backup, the follo
Jim Leonard wrote at about 22:07:36 -0500 on Tuesday, September 1, 2009:
> > > I have already mentioned that your filesystem's "dump" utility
> > > works perfectly well for copying your filesystem, hardlinks and all,
> > > ACLs and all, to another filesystem/file/tape/whatever. I think you
Le mercredi 02 septembre 2009 à 12:10 +0200, Pieter Wuille a écrit :
> Hello everyone,
>
> trying to come up with a way for efficiently synchronising a BackupPC archive
> on one server with a remote and encrypted offsite backup, the following
> problems
> arise:
> * As often pointed out on this l
After a little more poking around, it seems the problem goes away if one
of the networks is disabled. Next thing for me to try: binding rsync to
the correct network and leaving both active.
At the risk of stating what you already know, Administrators in Windows
don't automatically have access t
Hello everyone,
trying to come up with a way for efficiently synchronising a BackupPC archive
on one server with a remote and encrypted offsite backup, the following problems
arise:
* As often pointed out on this list, filesystem-level synchronisation is
extremely cpu and memory-intensive. Not a
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 04:17:31PM -0400, swedishorr wrote:
> 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 backup
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 01:29:45PM -0400, Steve wrote:
> > > > > 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
42 matches
Mail list logo
