Cesar Kawar wrote at about 22:51:40 +0100 on Wednesday, March 9, 2011:
> I asume you changed disks on the nas, and you had to manually replicate the
> pool from the old storage without lvm support to the new one lvm based
>
> If that is correct, my guess is that the pool or the cpool or both
I asume you changed disks on the nas, and you had to manually replicate the
pool from the old storage without lvm support to the new one lvm based
If that is correct, my guess is that the pool or the cpool or both got
corrupted.
May that be the problem?
Cesar.
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El
Les Mikesell wrote at about 14:58:30 -0600 on Wednesday, March 9, 2011:
> On 3/9/2011 2:04 PM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> >
> > On the NAS, I upgraded the kernel to a debian kernel, changed from
> > ext2 to lvm2, and changed from RAID1 to non-RAID (which together only
> > slightly affected N
So I am trying to figure out why my statistics are not updating, so I looked
at the code for BackupPC_nightly. Running it manually as "perl
BackupPC_nightly 0 128", I get a list of "BackupPC_stats x = pool, 0,0,0,0
. (all zeros) - except for a couple lines where I see a 1 in the
second posi
On 3/9/2011 2:04 PM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
>
> On the NAS, I upgraded the kernel to a debian kernel, changed from
> ext2 to lvm2, and changed from RAID1 to non-RAID (which together only
> slightly affected NFS transfer speeds) - but again since the NFS
> speeds are reasonable, can any of the c
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 15:04 -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> The only change on the server was an upgrade from 3.1.x to 3.2.0 with
> minimal config changes.
Unfortunately, you've changed four variables at once. That makes it hard
to identify the issue. I've seen your scripts so I know you know
I run BackuppPC 3.2.0 under Fedora 12 on a P4 2.8GHz server with 2GB
of RAM and with storage mounted via NFS on a low-end NAS (DNS-323) on
a 100MB/sec LAN. Before making a number of changes to both server and
NAS (I know bad idea), I would get reasonable backup speeds where for
example an incremen
On 09/03/2011 18:01, Jim Durand wrote:
What is beneficial about doing full backups
weekly versus making only 1 full backup then incremental going
forward?
Thanks!
Jim
On 3/9/2011 12:01 PM, Jim Durand wrote:
> What is beneficial about doing full backups weekly versus making only 1
> full backup then incremental going forward?
First, if you use rsync, full backups just compare data and send
differences - and rebuild the tree for the next comparisons.
With tar a
What is beneficial about doing full backups weekly versus making only 1
full backup then incremental going forward?
Thanks!
Jim
--
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the be
10 matches
Mail list logo
