Holger Parplies wrote: >Hi, > >Mark Sopuch wrote on 07.06.2007 at 13:36:55 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Grouping >hosts and pool]: > > >>Jason M. Kusar wrote: >> >> >>>Mark Sopuch wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I'd like to group data (let's just say dept data) from certain hosts >>>>together (or actually to seperate some from others) to a different >>>>filesystem and still keep the deduping pool in a common filesystem. >>>>[...] >>>> >>>> >>>Yes, hard links do not work across filesystems. >>>[...] >>> >>> >>[...] my concerns lie mainly with certain types of >>hosts (data) encroaching quite wildly into the shared allocated space >>under DATA/... thus leaving less room for the incoming data from other >>hosts. It's a space budgetting and control thing. [...] I am not sure how >>any other quoting schemes would work to provide similar capability for soft >>and hard quota if they are in the same fs and usernames are not stamped >>around in DATA/... to differentiate such things to those other quota'ing >>systems. Sure I want to back everything up but I do not want the >>bulkiest least important thing blocking a smaller top priority backup >>getting space to write to when there's a mad run of new data. >> >>Hope I am being clear enough. Thanks again. >> >> > >I believe you are being clear enough, but I doubt you have a clear enough >idea of what you actually want :-). > > That may be true. I obviously treated hard-links as quite 'magical' and the reality of there implementation and implication (amongst other things) didn't come to thought.
>If multiple hosts/users share the same (de-duplicated) data, which one would >you want it to be accounted to? > For me, it's more about isolation than accounting. I guess I was looking for a common filesystem to pool into plus seperate filessystems per group of hosts. Each group would have hosts sandboxed (in a filesystem with soft and hard quotas) then alerts of quotas near nearing limits are sent by the file server appliance to backuppc admins. If a per group sandbox fills then I can live with that and it's backups failing but I cannot live with a common pooling filesystem filling up of course due to it's shared nature (dependencies). My efforts would always have ensured the common pool is massive enough to cover some concept of a worst case (best dedupe case) leaving the sandbox management as my only real concern. >If you don't expect much duplicate data between hosts (or groups of hosts), >the best approach is probably really to run independent instances of >BackupPC. > > I think I'll take that advice and given hard-links don't span filesystems I am railroaded anyway I suspect. Making a group manager that would edit symlinks to route the hosts to their respective group sandboxes was the other thing I was looking to do and now don't need to which is some consolation. Thanks for the polished explanation Holger. -- Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
