Les,
After a bit of thought I worked out a slightly different way of doing it... I could use Linux as the base os, running vmware, running a Linux Virtual machine..... The whoe reason is that on my Linux box, when installing it I have to set up linux (Not that hard), Configure the Gigabit adaptor (A bit touchy at times), install webmin, install nagios, install monarch (To configure Nagios), install backuppc, configure apache for authenticate for Backuppc and Nagios and Monarch, setup vnc server so I can vnc to it.... all up it can take about a whole day to re0build the box. I also want to get a Lacie Biggest disk (2TB) firewire drive for the pool, and having this as a vm would alow me to move it to a different machine REALLY REALLY easily. I could also copy the vm to the Lacie drive as a backup incase the whoe machine when caput!
What do you think?
Jamie
| Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17/02/2006 02:19 PM |
|
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 15:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anyhow, with such a powerful processor I would hate to think of it
> just sitting there when I'm not backing up doing nothing.
The obvious thing to do is to use Linux as your desktop
OS in the daytime when the backups are idle...
> I was considering running the box up as a Windoze box and chucking
> VMware on it (The new Free server product), giving it a few dedicated
> drive devices for the backup pool, but keeping the base os on a
> virtual disk.... This would make the OS a bit more portable and
> "Backup-able" so if I wanted to put it on a different machine I could
> just copy the vmware image across.
I'm not sure I see any advantage to having windows in the
picture, and installing Linux on a new box is fairly
trivial.
> However I am a little concerned that I will negate the entire benefit
> of the dual core processor just be putting it on a VM. I know I could
> use VMWare for linux and do it that way, but the main benefit I see in
> doing this is that I can easily backup the virtual machine and once I
> have BackupPC (And Nagios on this particular box) up and running then
> I won't have to worry about rebuilding them again (Which I have had to
> do a few times due to some hardware issues, and swapping drives around
> etc). I was just wondering what other ppl's thoughts were about doing
> this out there?
A really interesting concept would be to keep the pool on
a virtual drive. There is bound to be some overhead but
it might solve the problem of being able to copy the
archive quickly by allowing you to shut the vm down
and rsync files containing it to an offsite location.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
Mail was checked for spam by the Freeware Edition of No Spam Today!
The Freeware Edition is free for personal and non-commercial use.
You can remove this notice by purchasing a full license! To order
or to find out more please visit: http://www.no-spam-today.com
