On 01/16 09:45 , Dan Pritts wrote:
> > Accesses to disk will often end up being at least 2x as expensive; since
>
> assuming that swap is on the same disk as data, i think it could
> potentially be more like 10x or 100x. it's not just the extra reads
> and writes to and from the swap partition -
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 05:59:09PM -0600, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> if the client's swap space is heavily used, it will kill performance.
yup
> Accesses to disk will often end up being at least 2x as expensive; since
> memory in use must be written to swap in order to free space in RAM to
On 01/11 10:35 , Brendan Simon wrote:
> I upgraded my BackupPC server from 256MB to 1GB. It still is taking a
> long time to backup (over 24 hours for ~40GB using ssh/rsync). I think
> the problem is the client. The server is creating a ssh connection to
> the client and running rsync on the
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Brendan Simon wrote:
> So with that, I think I'll have to upgrade the RAM and increase the swap
> space if I can. I'm backing up the /home partition, which has some
> large source repositories, as well as user accounts, as well as the /var
> partition (
Les Mikesell wrote:
That should already be happening. Rsync does transfer the entire
directory tree before starting and there is a certain amount of
memory overhead per file. If you are short of RAM on the backuppc
server, this could make the process very slow. You might have
a big improvement i
On 12/29 06:07 , Brendan Simon wrote:
> What is the fastest solution for backuppc?
haven't done much experimenting with this; but tar over nfs ought to be
pretty quick. (also pretty insecure, and occasionally prone to
causing other headaches as nfs is wont to do).
> Obviously SSH adds some
> o
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 12:18, Paul Fox wrote:
> >
> > With transports other than rsync, that is necessary to be sure
> > you have a full copy of the all files. For example, none of the
> > others will pick up old files in their new positions under
> > a renamed directory using their increment
>
> rsync is definitely better than tar (just doesn't work for HFS forks on
> Mac OSX10.3 and before). I use rsync for my linux machines and it works
> great.
i know i say this everytime this topic comes up, so i apologize in
advance, but until the next release of backuppc with a built-in
> > If my understanding of the backuppc architecture is correct, then I
> > don't see the point of doing "full" backups in the sense of transferring
> > all the files accross the network.
>
> With transports other than rsync, that is necessary to be sure
> you have a full copy of the all f
To my knowledge rsyncd is the rsync daemon process that runs in the
background. They are two parts of the whole, not two seperate animals.
Rsync is by far the safest and the smartest way to go about it. But
you're right, ssh adds a considerable amount of overhead.
Faster? Are you running 1
Brendan Simon wrote:
What do you mean by backup window?
By this I mean how fast do you need the backup done (you answered this
below). You can set BackupPC to blackout certain times and thus "kind
of" set a time for when you want the backup run. I do this to force
backups to run between
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 19:54, Brendan Simon wrote:
> I would have thought that subsequent "full" backups would still use
> rsync, but the results saved as full files rather than deltas or only
> changed files.
Yes, rsync should send only the differences and new files when
you do a subsequent ful
What do you mean by backup window?
Which configuration setting do mean?
I want to do a full backup within 4 hours if possible, though I am happy
for the first full backup to take longer if necessary.
I would have thought that subsequent "full" backups would still use
rsync, but the results sa
Brendan,
Not sure if there is much else you can do to speed it up unless you
switch to a different product that has a client program installed on the
clients. BackupPC uses standard unix tools and seems to run very fast
once it is going. I had an issue with a bad server motherboard that
onl
Hi,
I'm using backuppc on a local network. I'm currently using ssh and
rsync but I don't think it is fast enough, at least for the full
backups. I'm not quite sure where the bottleneck is (server, network,
ssh, rsync, tar, gz, etc).
For now I'll assume it's my ssh/rsync setup. I want to k
15 matches
Mail list logo
