On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:05:58 -0800 "Andrius D. Ilgunas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would expect them to be network-type speeds on a T1 even as the > buckets are mounted via FUSE. I don't have numbers, but I can say > that a copy of one of my databases to /mnt/s3/bucket1 of around 250MB > will timeout approximately 30% of the time. But I'm sure that > copying over incremental changes, either via amanda or rsync would be > successful. I'm not so sure about using FUSE. Check my thinking here, folks. If you rsync between two computers, then rsync runs on both machines. The two instances calculate hashes for chunks of the data, and send the hashes back and forth. Based on the hashes, the originating instance then sends only the changed chunks to the other machine. So you don't have to carry the entire data set across the network in order to back up the entire data set. If you mount via FUSE, Samba, NFS or whatever, both instances of rsync runs locally. So the "remote" rsync reads the entire archive over the network in order to calculate its hashes. That's a huge overhead. I have 69 virtual tapes, and typically use one, rarely two, tapes a day. If I archive daily, I only have to move a few percent of my "tape library" to the archive. Inverting that, if I archived via a network mount, I would increase my overhead by hundreds of percent. Can you have a remote virtual machine and rsync to it? Preferably over SSH. Of course, your data set may be small enough that you don't care. That's fine, too. -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -- U.S. Const. Amendment IV Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
