-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
as I have the same issue with storing my BackupPC outside I tried
another way the last days:
First, my environment:
28 hosts to back up. Mostly idle machines with minor services (so no big
databases and so on). Partially fileserver with only litt
John Rouillard a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:49:03PM +0200, Matthias Meyer wrote:
>> Michael Stowe wrote:
>>> By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives unreliable?
>> Not really. But the server runs a lot of weeks without checking the disk.
>> I feel better if the disk w
Hi Christian,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Christian Völker wrote:
> First, my environment:
> 28 hosts to back up. Mostly idle machines with minor services (so no big
> databases and so on). Partially fileserver with only little daily
> changes. So I expected not too much daily chang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
> I'd say: Replace that USB 2.0 disk by something else like something
> connected via Firewire or eSATA. USB 2.0 is very, very slow, especially
> for random access.
I know, but that's not the point here. Speed doesn't concern me- the
copy should l
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Christian Völker wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> as I have the same issue with storing my BackupPC outside I tried
> another way the last days:
>
> First, my environment:
> 28 hosts to back up. Mostly idle machines wi
Christian Völker wrote:
>
> First, my environment:
> 28 hosts to back up. Mostly idle machines with minor services (so no big
> databases and so on). Partially fileserver with only little daily
> changes. So I expected not too much daily changes on the pool.
> I want to copy the pool to a remote lo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
>> Third try was to use "dump" for this hoping it would transfer only
>> changed blocks after the initial dump. No way. After one day it
>> transferred 300GB (!). I thought, dump might not bee a good solution...
> I suspect dump sees the link coun
Jeffrey writes:
> Unless I missed a post, I don't see how there is enough data to answer
> your question whether it is broken or not. It's possible and perhaps
> even probable that you mistakenly created shares instead of excludes
> (which is what the end result looks like) or there could be somet
