On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 09:38, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> >
> >>> Out of curiosity how long did it take and how big was the entire data
> >>> size on the first run? did it eat up all the cpu time when running?
> >> As I remember, it took a couple of hours; but I was copying from one HDD
> >> to a
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 04:13, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>
>>> Out of curiosity how long did it take and how big was the entire data
>>> size on the first run? did it eat up all the cpu time when running?
>> As I remember, it took a couple of hours; but I was copying from one
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 04:13, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> > Out of curiosity how long did it take and how big was the entire data
> > size on the first run? did it eat up all the cpu time when running?
>
> As I remember, it took a couple of hours; but I was copying from one HDD
> to another.
> I
Les Stott wrote:
I know of people who do it; but they're doing it on machines with more
memory and fewer files.
>> Just add lots of swap.
>>
>> I was able to rsync an archive with several million files on a machine
>> with just 256 MB RAM; it had several gigabytes of swap.
>>
>>> I know of people who do it; but they're doing it on machines with more
>>> memory and fewer files.
>>>
>
> Just add lots of swap.
>
> I was able to rsync an archive with several million files on a machine
> with just 256 MB RAM; it had several gigabytes of swap.
>
>
>
Out of curiosi
Rodrigo Real wrote:
> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 10/28 10:23 , Rodrigo Real wrote:
>>> Can't you install rsync on 10.0.0.254? That should be the easiest way,
>>> rsync can preserve hard links with the -H option, additionally it
>>> would transfer only the differenc
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/28 10:23 , Rodrigo Real wrote:
>> Can't you install rsync on 10.0.0.254? That should be the easiest way,
>> rsync can preserve hard links with the -H option, additionally it
>> would transfer only the differences between the two hosts.
>
On 10/28 10:23 , Rodrigo Real wrote:
> Can't you install rsync on 10.0.0.254? That should be the easiest way,
> rsync can preserve hard links with the -H option, additionally it
> would transfer only the differences between the two hosts.
on the topic of server replication; the problem with using
Rodrigo Real wrote:
> "Paul Guijt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Paul
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I run BackupPC on system 10.0.0.170, and would like to backup to system
>> 10.0.0.254. System 10.0.0.254 can't run BackupPC, but can be reached through
>> ftp and SMB.
>
> You want some sort of rep
"Paul Guijt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Paul
> Dear all,
>
> I run BackupPC on system 10.0.0.170, and would like to backup to system
> 10.0.0.254. System 10.0.0.254 can't run BackupPC, but can be reached through
> ftp and SMB.
You want some sort of replication?
I think that the main prob
Dear
all,
I run BackupPC on
system 10.0.0.170, and would like to backup to system 10.0.0.254. System
10.0.0.254 can't run BackupPC, but can be reached through ftp and SMB.
Is that possible?
And how? I'm new to BackupPC, so please forgive me if the question has been
answered earlier. I
11 matches
Mail list logo
