In the message dated: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:16:26 EST,
The pithy ruminations from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 
<Re: [BackupPC-users] New user, few questions> were:
=> 
=> Dan,
=> 
=> 
=> > Alternately, just break your backup set into two (or more) pieces.
=> 
=> Ah, I haven't tried that yet... There are a couple of reasons why:
=> 
=>   -- even though I'm backing up only one machine, I have one "client" per
=> backed up dir ("share"?, I'm using rsync), because I want to invoke the
=> creation of a single LVM snapshot at a time with $Conf{DumpPreUserCmd} (I
=> don't want more than one snapshot simultaneously on the client, at least
=> for now, for performance and space reasons).
=> 
=>   -- subdirectories below each backed up dir can change, so I can't use a
=> static list, lest I be forced to maintain it (I'm lazy, I know).
=> 
=> But now you got me thinking... there might be ways to do it. For example, I
=> know that in the home partition there is one user that takes as much space
=> as everybody else together. So that would be a good candidate to break that
=> backup set into two nearly-equal-size pieces.
=> 


This sounds a great deal like what I proposed on Jan 16, describing a 
suggestion to enhance backuppc to dynamically create backup sets of small 
sizes. 
I saw much the same problems as you, with long back times, and the burden of 
maintaining different backup sets in the face of changing disk usage.

Check the archive for the post entitled "rsync dynamic backup set partitioning
enhancement proposal".



=> This is what I have currently:
=> 
=>     $Conf{RsyncShareName} = '/home_snapshot';
=> 
=> Would something like this work?:
=> 
=>     $Conf{RsyncShareName} = '/home_snapshot';
=> 
=>   $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} = {
=>       '/home_snapshot' => [ '/<large_user_home_dir>' ],
=>       '/home_snapshot' => [ some grep-like operation that lists all home
=> directories, but excludes /<large_user_home_dir> ],
=>     };
=> 
=> 
=> Because the config files are Perl scripts, the second list can be generated
=> dynamically. I'd have to ssh to the client, ls /home_snapshot, filter
=> <large_user...> out from that directory listing... looks doable... Argh!

Exactly. I think this should be built into backuppc...

=> that wouldn't fly, because two hash entries with the same key means the
=> second one would overwrite the first one. Hmm, but something along those

Not a problem, if you consider the "hash" to be the full path.

=> lines... Is it possible to have arrays of arrays?:

Yes, perl conceptually supports arrays of arrays. I don't know if that would 
work w/in backuppc as it is now.

=> 
=>   $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} = {
=>       '/home_snapshot' => [
=>                             [ '/<large_user_home_dir>' ],
=>                             [ some grep-like operation that lists all home
=> directories, but excludes /<large_user_home_dir> ]
=>                           ],
=>   };
=> 
=> 
=> In which case I could just as well do this:
=> 
=>   $Conf{RsyncShareName} = [
=>       [ '/home_snapshot/<large_user_home_dir>' ],
=>       [ /home_snapshot prefixed to each element of the filtered list of
=> home dirs ]
=>   ];
=> 
=> 
=> 
=> I bet there is some much simpler way of doing this, and I just have the
=> blinders on.

Yes. Use the "exclude" options in the client-side rsyncd.conf. For example, my 
backuppc server connects to a number of targets (in rsync terminology, a 
"module") on the clients. The clients then define what directories are included/
excluded in each target. In theory, the rsyncd.conf file could be build 
dynamically. Here's a snippet of an rsyncd.conf on a backup client:


[justroot]
        path = /
        exclude = boot cdrom home opt tmp usr usr/local var win98 proc sys 
mnt/*/*

[usr]
        path = /usr
        exclude = usr/local/

[usr_local]
        path = /usr/local

The backuppc server simply connects to the client modules "justroot", "usr", 
"usr_local", and so on, without maintaining the exclude lists on the server. 
Each of these targets, corresponding to mount points, could easily be generated 
dynamically.

=> 
=> 
=> > cat5e should work fine for gigabit (it is the specified cable for
=> > 1000baseT).  You don't need cat6.
=> 
=> Thanks for correcting me on cat 5e vs cat6. That's good news for me.
=> 
=> 
=> Bernardo Rechea
=> 


Mark


----
Mark Bergman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seeking a Unix/Linux sysadmin position local to Philadelphia or via 
telecommuting

http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=bergman%40merctech.com





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Reply via email to