On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Jim Leonard wrote:
> I put all BackupPC messages into their own folder with an automatic
> rule; every 1-2 days, I check out that folder. Main inbox remains
> uncluttered. I also use a threaded newsreader so it's really easy to
> follow (or delete) entire conversat
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Holger Parplies wrote:
> No, my point was, the "load average" is an attempt to fit the state of a
> system into one single number (which, as we've agreed, is only good for
> getting a quick impression, nothing more).
Exactly. On Linux systems (don't have enough hig
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
>> I've got one server that all it does is back itself up that gives this
>> error. It started out only occasionally failing, but now I can't
>> complete a full backup w
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Nick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did you ever get this resolved? Im having the same problem, now all of
> my backups are failing with the same errors you are getting. Im using
> 2.6.9 protocol version 29. Ubuntu doesnt seem to have a newer version
> availa
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:01 AM, WebIntellects Technical Support
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When trying to backup a server for the first time we are receiving the
> following error, has anybody seen this and know the fix:
>
> Fatal error (bad version): sudo: symbol lookup error: sudo: undefined sy
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:34 PM, dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the rync algorythm is actually part of the GPL code released by Andrew
>> Tridgell.
>
> Yes, it is, but you can not Co
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:34 PM, dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the rync algorythm is actually part of the GPL code released by Andrew
> Tridgell.
Yes, it is, but you can not Copyright algorithms, and you can't
protect them from reverse engineering. You can patent an algorithm,
but I know of no
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM, dtktvu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's still being discussed whether it's going to be open source or commercial.
> Right now, looks like it's going to be free to download type...
If you used the rsync source code to create the rsync .NET version, I
think that you
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Nick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using the volume shadow copy to backup large (12gig+) sql db's.
> After the first full backup, and things are changed/added to the DB,
> is it going to pull down the entire DB again or will it just download
> the changes
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Stephen Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For anything approaching 1TB or larger, consider xfs over ext3. Fsck'ing a
> large ext3 filesystem takes ages.
Why would you ever need to fsck a ext3 volume? I suspect that a full
fsck of an xfs volume is just as slow as
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My original contention still stands tho; that lowering the priority of the
> BackupPC_link process is a Good Thing.
I certainly agree - at least for servers where BackupPC is not the
only thing running.
On my
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Hereward Cooper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glad to here it behaves like I had expected and hoped.
>
> But I've attached 3 quick screen shots as illustration of my problem.
First full backed up 30 MB.
First incr backed up ~1.3 GB of mostly new files.
Second incr
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hereward Cooper wrote:
> > Is there a solution to this, as I'd love to keep using this program
> > rather than going back to my custom rsync script.
>
> It should be doing what you want now. You just need to balance the
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:41 AM, dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I still cannot install 0.68 as I get the same make error
> "array type has incomplete element type" which is gcc4 being more picky that
> gcc3 was :(
You can't get an old version of gcc on there to compile with?
-Dav
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Daniel Denson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will run whatever specific test you would like with Bonnie++, just
> give me the command line arguements you would like to see. i have each
> filesystem mounted to /test$filesystem so you can include that if you
> lik
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:07 PM, dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CPU e8400 3Ghz Dual Core.
> single 7200rpm 16MB cache 200GB maxtor drive.
> ubuntu 7.10
You don't mention how much memory you have in the machine...
> FILE COUNT
> 138581 634MB average of 4.68KB per file(coped the /etc directory 2
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Adam Goryachev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So would it then make sense for a backuppc data partition to use a
> smaller stripe size since most writes will be very small?
Yes, if you're using RAID5. Doing some benchmarking would help find
the "sweet spot".
> > H
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Christopher Derr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is backuppc up to the task of backing up TBs of data? Or should I be
> looking at software that explicitly states "for the enterprise" like
> Symantec Backup Exec, Legato, or even open source Bacula? All of these
>
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Adam Goryachev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was always led to believe that the more drives you had in an array the
> faster it would get. ie, comparing the same HDD and controller, if you
> have 3 HDD in a RAiD5 it would be slower than 6 HDD in a RAID5.
For mos
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RAID5/6 have a performance penalty when compared to other RAID level
> because every single write (or, write IO operation) requires four disk
> IOs on two drives (two reads, and two writes), possibly harming other I
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Mostly) agreed. If you can afford a hardware raid controller, raid 5 is a
> good choice.
To clarify, a hardware raid controller with battery backed RAM is a
good choice fo RAID 5, otherwise it will either be very slow f
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stripe size is 64k.
> Also, the system was made with just "mkfs.ext3 -j /dev/sdX", so without
> the stride option (or other useful options, like online resizing, which
> is enabled by default only in the recent rel
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So there you go. IMO, unless you are willing to overhaul your storage
> system or slightly increase the risk of data corruption (IMO,
> data=writeback instead of the default data=ordered should be a large
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you give us more details on your disk array? Controller, disks,
> > RAID layout, ext3 fs creation options, etc...
>
> I said some of that already - but here are some missing parts.
> 5x 400 MB HDD (WDC WD4000
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I didn't have IO::Dirent installed, thanks for the hint. Let's hope
> the list of directories in "trash" will keep decreasing now. Right now,
> I have almost 100 directories there, and it is growing each day a b
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:29 PM, dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> reiserfs will certainly help a lot with the hardlink and directorie creation
> and deletion. claims about reiserfs tend to be greatly exagerated but this
> is a true strength of it and would will see a really remarkable performance
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it doesn't scale very well in terms of performance - you
> may see this thread on linux-fsdevel list for more info:
> http://marc.info/?t=12033398513&r=2&w=4
What version of BackupPC? 3.1.0 does
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Nick Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich Rauenzahn wrote:
> > dan wrote:
> >> no, incrementals are more efficient on bandwidth. they do a less
> >> strenuous test to determine if a file has changed.
> >>
> >> at the expense of CPU power on both sides, you
On Feb 11, 2008 7:51 PM, Justin Best <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Nicholas Mistry wrote:
>> Install your favorite flavor of linux with backuppc (CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu,
>> Debian) but install a stripped down version w/o the gui and the like.
>
> Well, my first concern w
On Jan 17, 2008 1:37 PM, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a BackupPC server that I haven't touched in a while. It is currently
> running version 2.1.2pl1. Since I am so far behind, are there any problems
> I would run into upgrading this to the latest version? Anything in
> parti
On Jan 18, 2008 12:50 AM, KLEIN Stéphane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are there a directive or other stuff to limit memory usage (RAM) of
> backuppc ?
Not really, the maximum amount of memory is more or less tied to the
type of backups your are doing and the number of files being backed
up.
For e
On Dec 18, 2007 5:05 PM, Brendan Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So is the bottleneck rsync or the number of files or memory ???
In this case, it's neither the number of files or memory.
If you look at top in this particular case, the backup is complete CPU
bound, with ~70% CPU being used by B
On Dec 16, 2007 9:44 PM, Brendan Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * The backuppc server is an Intel P3 800MHz with 512MB RAM and
> 550GB or raid storage for data backups.
> * The linux host I am backing up is a Dual Processor AMD64 2GHz with
> 2GB RAM.
> * All are connec
On Nov 28, 2007 10:15 AM, Arch Willingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you upgrade if the original install was from the source?
Yes, it is very easy to upgrade from source. Just follow the
installation instructions, an upgrade follows the same procedure.
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/Ba
On Nov 6, 2007 7:35 AM, Paul Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I mount my /backup raid with noatime and notail options.
> >
> Don't forget nodiratime.
nodiratime is a subset of noatime, so if you have noatime set, there
is no need to set nodiratime.
-Dave
I noticed that for hosts which I have disabled, old full/incremental
backups don't get removed automatically anymore.
Reading the docs, it appears that backups only get moved to the trash
after a successful backup which likely explains why this is happening.
Now, I could just go move those backup
On 10/24/07, Hendrik Friedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, what surprises me is, that I can't hear it seeking...
Try using `iostat 3` or similar during a backup. Typical 7200 rpm IDE
disks can't do more than 100-150 IOP/s or so.
> /dev/hda5 94% /mnt/data <--xfs, not used by backuppc
> /dev/h
On 10/8/07, Hendrik Friedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, what I did now was a backup of localhost. Here, the network cannot be
> the bottleneck, and I can check the rest with vmstat, too. By the way: The
> Pool-Disk is dedicated an not the source disk for the backup.
>
> Here's the vmstat. I ho
On 10/8/07, Hendrik Friedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io -system-- cpu
> r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo in cs us sy id wa
> 3 0 80 6944 32080 32842800 668 1176 3503 7659 33 29 38 0
> 1
On 10/7/07, Hendrik Friedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what do you think is a good approach to find out what slows backuppc
> down?
Running top and vmstat 3 while a backup is running works very well and
will help track down where the bottleneck is.
-Dave
On 10/2/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My first decision point is potentially the easiest. I thought rather
> than buying one huge backup server and trying to backup all 32 hosts, it
> might be smarter to buy 2 (or more) smaller machines and splitting up
> the load. I would think th
On 9/27/07, Doug Lytle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've recently purchased two 500GB drives that I wanted to add to my XFS
> LVM. It turns out that you can't resize an XFS partition. I ended up
> having to recreate the LVM.
You can resize an XFS partition, you need to use the xfs_growfs utility
On 9/27/07, Dan Pritts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I've been of the opinion (not backed up by experimental data) that
> a concatenation (what linux md driver calls LINEAR; similar effects can
> be realized with LVM) of two RAID1's would be better for BackupPC than
> a RAID10.
>
> My rationale f
On 9/26/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
> > Your machine looks fine to me. Your backuppc data partition is a single
> > disk?
>
> My servers disk it 6 250G IDE drives arranged in a RAID5 with 1 Hot
> Spare. The Controller is a 3Ware E
On 9/26/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, due to a power failure, I was put in the lovely position of a
> corrupted ReiserFS tree. I ran reiserfsck, which took 4 days to
> complete and just couldn't bring myself to trust stability of the disk.
Given the lack of interest/maintaine
On 9/19/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached are the files you requested. The BackupPC server was running 2
> long running backups when I took these. In addition to the screenshots
> you requested, I added a screenshot from the web console of BackupPC.
>From your screenshots, the
On 9/19/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked into the checksum-seed option for rsync and it appears to a
> patch that I don't have. I am using Gentoo and just installed rsync
> from Portage. Has that patch every made it into the rsync upstream?
Checksum seed support was added in
On 9/19/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
> > Your backup server is showing about 22% waiting on disk IO, how many
> > processors and what type of disk/filesystem is your backuppc data
> > partition on?
>
> The system has 2 dual cor
On 9/19/07, Merz, Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm running Backuppc successfully for quite some time now, backing up mostly
> Windows Clients and Servers using smbclient.
> As the Data is growing, its becoming difficult to backup a complete Server
> over Night, so I'm looking if I can spe
On 9/18/07, Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I would like to do is figure out the best way of determining if the
> source of the slowness is the target server, the backuppc server or a
> network bottleneck that I just can't imagine.
Fire up `top` and `vmstat 3` on each machine while t
On 9/10/07, Les Dunaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The yum pkg for BackupPC on the Fedora Extras is back level (2.1.2-7)
> with AFAICS no web UI?
>
> Is there a plan to pkg 3.x? If so, when?
You should probably open a bug in RedHat's bugzilla to get an answer
to this, it's very likely that Craig
On 8/21/07, Rich Rauenzahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whenever I use these options, rsync "seems" to work and transfer
> files but nothing ever seems to actually get written to the backup
> dirs:
The Perl Rsync library doesn't support compression which is why adding
the compression option to
On 7/26/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Yaakov Chaikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a very basic question... After reading the docs, I am unclear
> > on the difference between an incremental backup and a full backup.
> > Since
On 7/26/07, Yaakov Chaikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a very basic question... After reading the docs, I am unclear
> on the difference between an incremental backup and a full backup.
> Since the backups are stored in a pool which stores JUST the
> difference between the older and newer
On 7/5/07, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/05 05:11 , David Rees wrote:
> > I think that possible workarounds would be to switch to a different
> > backup transport other than rsync. Can anyone think of any other
> > solutions?
>
> Try
Hi,
I'm using backuppc to backup a number of different machines, but am
having some memory consumption issues with the backuppc daemon when
backing up one particular host we just started backing up using
BackupPC 3.0.0.
When backing up this client, the daemon uses over 4GB of RAM causing
the mach
On 6/13/07, Francis Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I currently use BackupPC 3.0.0 to backup 2 www servers. As bandwidth cost a
> lot, I would like to use BackupPC similar to a commercial online backup
> service we use. This service does a full backup only once, then do only
> incremental back
On 5/3/07, Les Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YOUK Sokvantha wrote:
> > I installed Backuppc 2.1.2-2ubuntu5 on Ubuntu 5 server edition. I
> > mounted data directory /var/lib/backuppc to /dev/sda. I added another
> > hard disk /dev/sdb and mount /dev/sdb as /var/lib/backuppc-mirror. My
> > pur
On 4/23/07, James Kyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm getting the "Administrative Attention Needed" alerts daily
> referring to a host that I've set as being archived.
>
> I've set the $Conf{BackupsDisable} variable to "2 -> Don't do any
> backups on this client. Manually requested backups (via
On 3/30/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
> > How long are full and incremental backups taking now?
>
> In one machine it went down from 900 minutes to 175 minutes. I expect better
> performance
> when more memory is added (today or tomor
On 3/29/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didnt blame anybody, just said BackupPC is working slow and it was working
> slow, very slow indeed. checksum-seeds option seems to be doing it's trick
> though.
How long are full and incremental backups taking now?
> I am thankful to peo
On 3/28/07, John T. Yocum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the iostat output, the server is doing two full backups at the
> moment, along with a nightly. Server specs: P4 3.2Ghz, 512MB RAM, 300GB
> SATA drive.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# iostat
> Linux 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp (backup2.fluidhosting.co
On 3/28/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a sample from my backuppc server which has 3 disks while
> backups are being run. The backuppc partition uses 2 disks in RAID1
> exactly the same as yours. The other disk is the system disk (also
> 7200rpm ATA).
take 5-10 minutes as you'd expect.
And my server isn't that different than yours disk-wise, just RAID1
instead of no raid, it's even the exact same disk.
On 3/27/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
> That is true, full backups take about 5
On 3/27/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
> > Evren, I didn't see that you mentioned a wall clock time for your
> > backups? I want to know how many files are in a single backup, how
> > much data is in that backup and how long it
On 3/27/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you try mounting the backup partition async so we can see if it
> really is read performance or write performance that is killing backup
> performance?
>
> I must wonder if ufs2 is really bad at storing inodes on disk...
On 3/27/07, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
> >> What is wall clock time for a run and is it
> >> reasonable for having to read through both the client and server copies?
> >
> > I am using rsync but the problem is that it still has to go through a
> > lot of hard
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lets hope this doesnt wrap around... as you can see load is in 0.1-0.01
> range.
>
> 1 usersLoad 0.12 0.05 0.01 Mar 27 07:30
>
> Mem:KBREALVIRTUAL VN PAGER SWAP PAGER
>
On 3/20/07, Henrik Genssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are there any issues upgrading from 2.1.2.pl1?
None that I know of. The upgrade process is pretty smooth. (though I
opted to convert to the new configuration file layout at the same time
which does take a bit of tweaking).
> is 3.0 yet apt-g
Let's start at the beginning:
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to disk
> bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
> the mailing list and it is mentioned that this is happening becau
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And, you could consider buying a faster drive, or one with a larger
> > buffer. Some IDE drives have pathetically small buffers and slow
> > rotation rates. That makes for a greater need for seeking, and worse
> > seek performance.
>
> Wel
On 3/26/07, Bernhard Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is true that BackupPC is great, however backuppc is slow because it
> > is trying to make backup of a single instance of each file to save
> > space. Now we are wasting (perhaps even more?) space to make it fast
> > when we do raid1.
>
> Yo
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Pettitt wrote:
> > The basic problem is backuppc is using the file system as a database -
> > specifically using the hard link capability to store multiple references
> > to an object and the link count to manage garbage collection. Man
On 3/22/07, John Pettitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you checked that the 3ware actually has cache enabled - it has a
> habit of disabling it if the battery backup is bad or missing and it
> will make a *huge* difference
Just make sure that if you enable the cache you actually have batt
On 3/22/07, John T. Yocum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On our backup servers, they are all showing a very high wait during
> backups. Here's a screenshot from one of them
> http://www.publicmx.com/fh/backup2.jpg. At the time it was doing two
> backups, and a nightly.
>
> Any advice on improving per
On 3/14/07, John Pettitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's time to build a new server. My old one (a re-purposed Celeron D
> 2.9Ghz / 768M FreeBSD box with a a 1.5 TB raid on a Highpoint card) has hit
> a wall in both performance and capacity. gstat on FreeBSD shows me that
> the Highpoint
On 2/20/07, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/20 12:39 , Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> > All my clients are servers with fast connections. I'll take
> > MaxBackups down to 1 then.
>
> I haven't done any thorough empirical testing on this, but I suspect that
> MaxBackups
On 1/9/07, Timothy J. Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, it seems to me that the culprit is rsync. I think the reason my
> production backup servers are usually at 100% CPU utilization is that
> they're backing up reasonably high-performance file servers that have
> enough CPU power to max ou
On 1/8/07, Timothy J. Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> top - 21:09:02 up 3:55, 2 users, load average: 1.15, 1.12, 1.06
> Tasks: 45 total, 2 running, 42 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
> Cpu(s): 82.1% us, 11.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.3% wa, 2.7% hi, 3.7% si
> Mem:109068k total,
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I routinely hit 100% CPU utilization on the Via C3 1GHz Mini-ITX systems I
> use as backup servers. I will grant you that the C3 is not the most
> efficient processor, but I am definitely CPU-limited. I too have 512MB RAM,
> but the machin
On 1/2/07, Jason Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good recommendations, Holger. I would add that "nice"ing a process only
> changes its scheduling affinity, but does not modify in any way its hard
> disk activity or DMA priority, so until the original poster understands
> what exactly makes the
On 12/29/06, Michal Wokoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But when I run a full backup on workstation with about 25 GB of user data in
> small files (mostly word and excel documents), the fileserver freezes
> after circa
> half an hour - leds on keybord blinking and I have to push the hard
> reset. T
On 12/20/06, John Pettitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm about to migrate my BackupPC partition to a new raid controller
> (more space and more spindles) - my current thinking is to use
> dump/restore - has anybody done this - what issues did you encounter?
I've used tar over ssh which worked we
On 11/10/06, James Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have ~160 servers connected on a high speed internal network which
> I use to do backups. Additionally I have ~50 remote servers which I
> back up over the external network. It's taking about a week to make
> the rounds of all the systems.
On 11/8/06, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I pull the latest code from CVS, is there anything special I need
> to do before using it to upgrade compared to the normal tarball?
Hey look, there appears to be a handy makeDist script. Let's see how
that
On 11/8/06, Craig Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, are there any known issues with the current beta? I would like
> > to start testing 3.0, but IIRC there was some issues with the first
> > beta so I was waiting for the 2nd one...
>
> There are no known significant issues with the curre
On 11/7/06, Craig Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will do one more 3.0.0 beta by the end of this month.
> That should be very close to the final 3.0.0 release.
>
> Even though the 3.0.0 beta releases are quite stable, given the
> wide deployment of BackupPC I wanted to have a conservative be
On 10/16/06, James Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have two ~180G NFS filesystems I'm backing up, but they take a
> lng time. My boss says they only need to be backed up once a
> month. What's the easiest way to get them to schedule only once
> every four weeks?
Set the FullPeriod to 30
On 10/2/06, Steffen Heil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My current pool is on a 80 GB raid1 lvm-backed device using ext3.
> Now one of the drives failed and the pool is 82% full.
>
> So I got 2 new 200 GB drives, configured them with raid1 and lvm using xfs.
>
> So, how do I get the pool over there?
On 8/25/06, zorg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a ps command give me a lot of process like this
> backuppc 2450 0.0 0.7 11616 7324 ?DAug24 0:00
> /usr/bin/perl /dev/fd/3//usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin//index.cgi
>
> Don't really know what happen (not log, no error)
Sounds like your
On 6/22/06, Mark Wass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What are the setting in the config.pl file I need to set if I want to
> backup a single file.
>
> I'm using Rsync and I only want to backup the /etc/temp.ini file
Have a look at $Conf{BackupFilesOnly}
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/Backu
On 6/9/06, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harry Mangalam wrote:
> > I agree this is a problem - what I do is run iftop on a server
> > console to see what's transferring from what hosts at what rates. If
> > you keep it running, it will give you a pretty good idea what's
> > happening
>
On 6/7/06, Craig Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a new version of File::RsyncP that is close to release
> that you could try. I can email it to you if you want.
Out of curiosity, what's new in File::RsyncP?
-Dave
___
BackupPC-users mail
On 5/9/06, Martin Giebat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm running backuppc version 2.1.2 on a Debian linux with version 2.4.26. At
least once a
week backuppc crashes and gives me an error like this:
kernel BUG at buffer.c:603
invalid operand
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010[] Not tainted
EFLAGS 00010
On 5/16/06, Raf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
May 15 22:15:32 backup kernel: Bad page state in process 'BackupPC_tarExt'
May 15 22:15:32 backup kernel: page:c117fd20 flags:0x80010008
mapping: mapcount:0 count:2130706432 (Not tainted)
May 15 22:15:32 backup kernel: Trying to fix it up, but a
On 5/11/06, Lee A. Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I noticed while monitoring backuppc that it doesn't seem to compress on the
fly, is this
true? I am backing up 40GB's worth of data on a server and as it is backing up
I monitor
the disk space usage on the mount point and by looking at tha
On 4/14/06, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have a look at rsync's "-x" option.
Not what I'm looking for, that stays on one partition and each machine
has multiple partitions to backup.
-Dave
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a gro
When doing rsync over ssh I'd like to be able to specify certain
filesystem types to exclude backing up. For example, I'd like to
exclude all nfs filesystems from being backed up, this way when I back
up a group of machines, mounting the same nfs share, the nfs contents
don't get backed up multiple
On 4/14/06, Ed Burgstaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can I painlessly upgrade or patch my current BackupPC version 2.1.1
> without screwing up my now working system?
> Thanks to all
Upgrading is easier as installing. Just make sure you specify the same
data directory and it should go very sm
On 4/14/06, Vincent Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The -D option to rsync does what we want though, it means --devices on
> older rsyncs and --devices --specials on 2.6.7+. I've changed our
> $Conf{RsyncArgs} to use -D rather than --devices and things have worked
> since, and suggest we do the sa
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
