On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Mike Dresser wrote:
> On 29/09/11 10:28 PM, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> > Can I assume this is because the new HDD's perform better than the old?
> > In other words, would it be safe to assume you would get even better
> > performance using RAID10 with the new HDD's than you are g
Hi (Jeff ;-)
I would like to try your BackupPC_copyPCPool.pl to backup my BackupPC
storage to another server.
Unfortunately this other server have no BackupPC installed.
I've copied FileZIO.pm, Lib.pm, jLib.pm, Attrib.pm and Storage.pm from
/usr/share/backuppc/lib/BackupPC as well as Text.pm fr
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Mike Dresser
wrote:
>
> Either way, the system keeps up with backups, so performance wasn't much
> of an issue, I just plain ran out of space on the old array.
>
> Also, with 6-8 drives, I can lose any two, vs the remote possibility of
> losing the wrong two on Rai
On 29/09/11 10:28 PM, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Can I assume this is because the new HDD's perform better than the old?
> In other words, would it be safe to assume you would get even better
> performance using RAID10 with the new HDD's than you are getting with RAID6?
Yes, the new drives are severa
On Friday 30 September 2011 14:37:20 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > And don't argue that disks with consecutive serial numbers won't break
> > together: From the three disk failures I encountered where I had a second
> > of the same type, that secon
On 2011-09-30 14:37, Les Mikesell wrote:
> For software raid, I thought a cron job was
> supposed to be testing them periodically, but the notification may not
> reach you - and hardware raid may not to the tests.
Ubuntu has a job in cron.monthly which does a full check of all md RAID
arrays. It r
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Arnold Krille wrote:
>
> And don't argue that disks with consecutive serial numbers won't break
> together: From the three disk failures I encountered where I had a second of
> the same type, that second broke shortly after.
>
I'd argue that it is not likely that
On 2011-09-30 12:51, Arnold Krille wrote:
> Thats stupid.
>
> Raid5: Loose one disk during recovery -> you are screwed.
> Raid6: Loose two disks during recovery -> you are screwed.
Further:
Raid5: Lose power during write operation = silent data corruption, which
you'll find out about next time y
On Friday 30 September 2011 06:20:42 Tim Connors wrote:
> Worst case, if you lose one disk, then rebuild, and during rebuild,
> suffer the likely consequence of losing another disk when rebuilding
> raid6, you still have a valid array.
> Worse case, fairly likely occurence with raid10, lose that se
On Wednesday 28 September 2011 20.26:25 Arnold Krille wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011 18:59:38 Tim Fletcher wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 17:30 +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
> > > I have a laptop that is dual-boot (Linux and WinXP) and gets the same
> > > IP from DHCP in both OS's. Today I
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 23:31 -0400, Long V wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a RAID 1 partition formatted as NTFS. The server is linux so I"ll
> be accessing that partition using ntfs-3g.
>
> Is there any expected problems to use BackupPC on top of a NTFS partition?
>
> I know BackupPC heavily uses hard-l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30/09/11 14:20, Tim Connors wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Adam Goryachev wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 30/09/11 04:11, Mike Dresser wrote:
>>> Just finishing up moving one of my backuppc servers to new larger
12 matches
Mail list logo
