David Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Nick Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rich Rauenzahn wrote:
>
> As Rich said, BackupPC's rsync modules don't support compression. SSH
> compression should work fine, though.
>
> -Dave
>
Yeah, but ssh compression isn't working for me either
Nick Webb 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 can compress the rsync
>>> traffic either with rsync -z
>> H
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
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 can compress the rsync
>> traffic either with rsync -z
> Have you tried rsync -z?
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 can compress the rsync
>> traffic either with rsync -z
> Have you tried rsync -z?
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 can compress the rsync
> traffic either with rsync -z
Have you tried rsync -z? Last I heard, BackupPC's rsyn
i looked at my archive history hear and i have a number of hosts than do
incrementals take like 6 minutes and fulls like 46 minutes
On Feb 19, 2008 4:07 PM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 02/19 05:53 , Raman Gupta wrote:
> > Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> > >>> If you'
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 can compress the rsync
traffic either with rsync -z or if you are using ssh then with ssh's
compression. if you REALLY wanted to go
On 02/19 05:53 , Raman Gupta wrote:
> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> >>> If you're running >=v3 the following option will make all the incrementals
> >>> sync against the previous incremental, instead of the last full. This
> >>> keeps
> >>> them from growing quite as quickly. (It's the behavior
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
>>> If you're running >=v3 the following option will make all the incrementals
>>> sync against the previous incremental, instead of the last full. This keeps
>>> them from growing quite as quickly. (It's the behavior you expect from
>>> rsync).
>>>
>>> $Conf{IncrLeve
> > If you're running >=v3 the following option will make all the incrementals
> > sync against the previous incremental, instead of the last full. This keeps
> > them from growing quite as quickly. (It's the behavior you expect from
> > rsync).
> >
> > $Conf{IncrLevels} = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];
> >
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> On 11/28 09:39 , Tim Hall wrote:
>> Are there any known backuppc tweaks/settings that
>> are proven to increase transfer performance over
>> wan links? Specifically with using rsyncd or rsync
>> as the transfer method.
>
> . . . .
>
> If you're running >=v3 the f
On 11/28 09:39 , Tim Hall wrote:
> Are there any known backuppc tweaks/settings that
> are proven to increase transfer performance over
> wan links? Specifically with using rsyncd or rsync
> as the transfer method.
the -C option to compress your SSH data is highly recommended. Also, going
with '-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Hall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> new to backuppc, I want to use to send my backups
> across the Internet (DSL) to an offsite server.
>
> Are there any known backuppc tweaks/settings that
> are proven to increase transfer performance over
> wan links? Speci
14 matches
Mail list logo
