As far as the notice you could use an api for the client to let the server
know that a backup client is done. In the case of duplicati backuppc would
be a file server for windows client. Also with duplicati the client would
start the backup and not the server.
On Mar 4, 2013 2:19 PM, "Les Mikesell"
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Zach Underwood wrote:
> What about forking http://www.duplicati.com. Could it be forked to add
> something to let the server know that the backup in done.
Not sure how something like that would relate to backuppc where the
point is that the server side can extract
What about forking http://www.duplicati.com. Could it be forked to add
something to let the server know that the backup in done.
On Mar 4, 2013 1:46 PM, "Les Mikesell" wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Michael Stowe
> wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone looked at the windows bacula client to see
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Michael Stowe
wrote:
>
>> Has anyone looked at the windows bacula client to see if it would be
>> possible to make backuppc use it as-is and extract the files for
>> storage like it does with tar?
>>
>
> I looked into it very briefly, and concluded that since the W
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Michael Stowe
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>> This thread started with a request for a "real" Windows client, which I
>> considered writing before scripting something, chiefly because I didn't
>> want to spend the time to get it working and find I had to redo the
>> whole
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Michael Stowe
wrote:
>
>>
> This thread started with a request for a "real" Windows client, which I
> considered writing before scripting something, chiefly because I didn't
> want to spend the time to get it working and find I had to redo the whole
> thing shortl
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Mark Campbell
wrote:
> Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, what are your thoughts on using ZFS' dedup
> feature on a BackupPC pool? I'm aware that a goodly amount of RAM would be
> required for that feature. But since BackupPC's dedup feature is file-based,
> an
On 2013-03-04 17:20, Mark Campbell wrote:
> Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, what are your thoughts on using ZFS' dedup
> feature on a BackupPC pool? I'm aware that a goodly amount of RAM would be
> required for that feature. But since BackupPC's dedup feature is file-based,
> and ZFS' dedup
> On 2013-03-01 22:05, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote:
>> Maybe it's time (or beyond time) to seek out Craig and see what his
>> plans are for maintaining/evolving BackupPC are. If he is not
>> reachable or is not interested in continuing, maybe we need to see if
>> others are willing to take over l
Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, what are your thoughts on using ZFS' dedup
feature on a BackupPC pool? I'm aware that a goodly amount of RAM would be
required for that feature. But since BackupPC's dedup feature is file-based,
and ZFS' dedup feature is block-based, even more space could be s
Thanks Lars,
I think that this is going to be the way I'm going to go. I'm going to migrate
the existing pool from its current location on a 1TB linux MD RAID 1 to a newly
created 2TB ZFS RAID 1 using 3x drives (the third being the fireproof
external). I do believe that this is where BackupPC
On 2013-03-01 22:05, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote:
> Maybe it's time (or beyond time) to seek out Craig and see what his
> plans are for maintaining/evolving BackupPC are. If he is not
> reachable or is not interested in continuing, maybe we need to see if
> others are willing to take over leadershi
12 matches
Mail list logo
