, 25. Januar 2007 21:07
An: Simon Köstlin
Cc: 'Les Mikesell'; backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached
Storage
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:58:17PM +0100, Simon Köstlin wrote:
I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none
Simon Köstlin wrote:
Could it be that the problem is with my NFS, because if I mount the NFS it
takes also around 30 seconds until it is mounted. I'm mounting my NFS with
mount -t nfs 192.168.0.5:/home/backuppc /nas.
It might (or might not) help to specify options for rsize and wsize in
Hi,
I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) and
not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS and SSH. I
tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well. So I can use the
Data Directory in this Share. But the NAS supports only a UDP
Simon Köstlin wrote:
I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS)
and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS
and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well.
So I can use the Data Directory in this Share. But the
Le Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:05 +0100,
Simon Köstlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Hi,
I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS)
and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS
and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works
Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached
Storage
Simon Köstlin wrote:
I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS)
and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS
and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share
Simon Köstlin wrote:
I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls?
Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20-30 seconds
until the web page appears with the backups which were made. I thought that
would be better with an other connection. But that time is
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:58:17PM +0100, Simon Köstlin wrote:
I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls?
on local networks with little or no packet loss, UDP is a better choice
than TCP for NFS. TCP will probably actually slow NFS down a little.
If you have packet loss, i'd
Directory on a Network Attached
Storage
Simon Kstlin wrote:
I want to have the Data Directory on a Network Attached Storage (NAS)
and not on the BackupPC Server. The NAS supports NFS, SMB, FTP, CIFS
and SSH. I tried to mount an NFS Share on the NAS and that works well.
So I can use the Data
Köstlin
Cc: 'Les Mikesell'; backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached
Storage
Simon Köstlin wrote:
I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls?
Also when I click on a PC in the web interface it takes around 20
2007 21:07
An: Simon Köstlin
Cc: 'Les Mikesell'; backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory on a Network Attached
Storage
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:58:17PM +0100, Simon Köstlin wrote:
I think TCP is a safer connection or plays that none rolls
to load also if I have Backups with 3GB.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Les Mikesell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 20:35
An: Simon Köstlin
Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC Data Directory
Travis Fraser wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 13:09 -0700, Brien Dieterle wrote:
Most NFS servers are pitifully slow compared to a local filesystem,
particularly when dealing with many small files. It pains me to think
about how slow that might get-- is anyone else using a non-local
13 matches
Mail list logo
